Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation

Searches for Dashnaktsutiun, Dashnak Party and Dashnak should redirect here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://armenian.tales.googlepages.com/Pastermadjian-1918.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707162428/http://www.armenianreporteronline.com/old/21042001/c-khachig.htm to http://www.armenianreporteronline.com/old/21042001/c-khachig.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

EtienneDolet Can you please explain why you are removing from the article that the Dashnak party was a right wing party? Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, because the source you use is a DENIALIST source. Do you understand why that would be problematic? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The LA Times is a denialist source? Samuel Huntington? There are multiple sources including Verluise who was already cited (in a GA article so I assume it's passed the review process for reliability). There is even a quote: "Although socialism played an important part in party ideology in its early years, the ARF after 1920 became an outspoken nationalist critic of Soviet Armenia." I'm not seeing the justification for reverting these. Regarding Gunter, I think it needs to go to RS/n, you can't just keep stripping cites from multiple articles without a consensus (I checked, but did not see any previous RS/N discussions about Gunter). Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, those sources violate WP:BALASP because its characterization of the ARF as an ultranationalist organization is in the minority. The LA Times and Huntington are also not foremost scholars in Armenian affairs. It's like you literally searched "ultranationalist" and "ARF" in good and just posted the results on the ARF's Wikipedia page. I mean, it's really not that easy. And yeah, good luck trying to convince those at the WP:RSN that an Armenian Genocide denialist is a reliable source. As of now, it should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I disagree. I don't think this is a minority position, and Samuel Huntington is a major source AFAIK.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

What don't you understand. Do you think the LA Times and Huntington are authoritative sources for Armenian affairs? What makes you think that? Also, why is Gunter still in this article? He denies the Armenian Genocide. It's like having a Holocaust denier talk about the Israeli lobby. It's clearly partial. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Even in cases of "holocaust denial" or sources about the holocaust that have been deemed controversial after discussion, they have needed to go to RS/N. And we should follow that process here as well. We have a presumption against outright bans on scholars and because it effects multiple articles it needs to be discussed at RS/N. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So you yourself are using sources that you don't even know are reliable yet and are so no confident about it that you want to take it to the RSN? Why would you use sources that you'd immediately send to RSN after using them in articles? Why don't you self-revert. Examine the source. Send it to the RSN if you'd like. Then come back here. That's the proper way of meeting the WP:BURDEN for your edits. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the source is reliable for the content I used it for. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Using an Armenian Genocide denier to describe Armenian affairs? I don't think so. If he were truly impartial, he wouldn't have titles of articles like "Armenian Terrorism" and Transnational Sources of Support for Armenian Terrorism" I mean, really? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Although socialism played an important part in party ideology in its early years, the ARF after 1920 became an outspoken nationalist critic of Soviet Armenia" does not say that the party became right-wing. It means exactly what it says. It was socialist (and remained socialist), but criticized Soviet Armenia from a nationalist POV. It's not that hard to understand. ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I think you should strive to maintain a civil tone. Anti-communist and nationalist are generally right wing ideologies, the argument that "Nazism was actually a leftist ideology", for example, is pretty much on the fringes of modern scholarship. But, there should be multiple explicit sources for labels, so I'm not planning to restore it without additional sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-communist and nationalist are generally right wing ideologies" we don't edit Wikipedia by generalizations. See left-wing nationalism for more. ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ultranationalism

Im somewhat negative regarding the sources being used claiming the ARF is an ultranationalist party. While they may provide us with the term, neither says anything about why they perceive the ARF to be ultranationalist, nor what being an ultranationalist acctually implies. I think that such controversial statements as the ARF being ultranationalist requires sources that not only labels the party as such, but acctually gives a proper explaination as to why they use this label and not something less controversial! Personally i have not come across any sources, at least no modern ones, that describes the ARF as being ultranationalist. If better sources cant be found then i suggest the term is removed from the infobox! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I will look for more sourcing, but there are far weaker sources then Samuel Huntington used for the infobox content. I would suggest reviewing those as well. For example, Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) seems to be a pretty minor/poss. non-RS source used for significant content. I can't find anything about them in secondary sources to judge reliability. RFE/RL is not great either, because of it's checkered past it needs attribution. It's not strong enough for the infobox. The eurasianet source also doesn't provide any details what is meant. The LA TImes and Huntington sources are on par with other sources used in the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tiberius here. That term needs to go and it appears Seraphim used it to smear the ARF in an extensive editing spree targeting Armenian organizations. Seraphim has just recently posted a comment on my talk page characterizing the actions of these organizations as "Armenian nationalist terrorism" and insisting we use Armenian Genocide denialists as "reliable sources". So it appears Seraphim is pushing a hard line Turkish nationalist POV as evident by these edits themselves. As for Huntington and the LA Times piece of 1995, I shouldn't repeat myself here. Strong bold claims need strong bold sources by those who are knowledgeable about the subject at hand. These are not authoritative works and it's for this reason why some authors who are not knowledgeable about Armenian affairs will use terms like "ultranationalist" on a whim but really have no such basis to fall back on upon further scrutinization. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

On that note I'm taking this to AE for personal attacks/WP:ASPERSIONS per this hard line Turkish nationalist POV. Good luck proving that based on my editing history - I've made countless edits that would be inconsistent with a hard line Turkish nationalist POV and I consider this a baseless personal attack, and it's not the first time. This is right after I posted a reminder about personal attacks/ASPERSIONS on Etienne's talk page. ASALA was a terrorist organization based on WP:RS. They placed a bomb at an airport in Paris that killed eight people in the 1983 Orly Airport attack. Adding content about that is not genocide denial, but you can explain why you think it is at AE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless you want to file a complaint at WP:AE yourself that provides evidence that Seraphim is pushing a hard line Turkish nationalist POV, it's not acceptable to keep repeating these types of WP:ASPERSIONS on talk pages after an editor has asked you to stop multiple times. If you have evidence, you should file it at WP:AE. I will give you some time to decide. (Unfortunately I can't file a complaint for repeated WP:ASPERSIONS because Etienne's D/S notice had expired, so I have just opted to issue a new one this time. I would still recommend striking the completely baseless personal attack and keeping future comments limited strictly to sourcing and article content (preferably this article and not some other article). Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ASALA was a terrorist organization based on WP:RS. - this is what I mean by WP:POVPUSHING and you should really read WP:TERRORIST. You've confessed to your personal beliefs just now and your editing pattern reflects that (i.e. using an Armenian Genocide denier who's hell-bent to portray Armenians as terrorists). Sure, you haven't used the word "terrorist" to describe ASALA on the main article, but expounding your personal beliefs that ASALA is a terrorist organization coupled with the fact that you're using an Armenian Genocide denialist as a "reliable source" isn't really helping your cause here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement that ASALA was a terrorist organization based on WP:RS means that WP:RS support the statement that ASALA is a terrorist organization. My personal beliefs are not sanctionable. The fact that I added neutrally worded content to the article describing them as a "militant organization" is more then I'm required to do under WP:TERRORIST because they are widely described as a terrorist organization. This is not really enough for an AE complaint, but I still think you should strike the hard line Turkish nationalist POV comment, as it is pure horse manure.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you used the term in the article. In fact, I was pretty clear: Sure, you haven't used the word "terrorist" to describe ASALA on the main article, but expounding your personal beliefs that ASALA is a terrorist organization coupled with the fact that you're using an Armenian Genocide denialist as a "reliable source" isn't really helping your cause here. You used a Armenian Genocide denialist source and even after I pointed that out to you, you still claimed it to be a reliable source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, very gently and politely, in a comment you reverted with a personal attack, and followed up with further personal attacks, I am strongly encouraging you to present your evidence for those statements at WP:RS/N and see if the community supports a blanket ban or just a ban for his WP:FRINGE viewpoints. Usually we exclude viewpoints, not scholars. (Unless it is something like David Duke where we can assume WP:FRINGE but these cases are very rare). The fact that this is something you feel passionately about does not alter our usual processes. We all have things we feel passionately about.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

something you feel passionately about - talk about personal attacks. How do you know what I feel passionately about? Plus, if you want to inquire about the exception to the long-standing consensus of Armenian Genocide deniers not being WP:RS, by all means head over to the RSN yourself and see how that'll work out for you. As for me, I don't see why I should argue that the WP:SKYISBLUE here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, especially as it seems I can't say anything right. It seems to me you are passionate about this because from your edit history, it seems like you edit on this subject frequently (if not exclusively). The tone of your comments also comes across as very heated at times, and in assuming good faith, I assume this is due to your having strong feelings on the topic rather then deliberate maliciousness. Usually we acknowledge this as a nod to the fact that editors acting in good faith can get heated sometimes. The intent behind the statement is not to attack you ... I am sorry you feel attacked. But, if you want to strip a highly-cited academic source written by a recognized scholar from multiple articles, you are the one that needs a consensus at WP:RS/N. Until then you have no justification for removal of sourced content on the grounds of non-reliability. Unless such a discussion takes place, I intend to continue using Gunter in a limited capacity (though I have never used him for his opinion of whether the genocide occurred).Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with labeling the ARF as ultranationalist․ The two sources already provided are fine. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that labeling anyone ultranationalist is usually a bit controversial. Both sources simply call the party ultranationalist without giving an explanation as to why they are ultranationalist and not just nationalist like the party claims itself. It is also uncertain how much the authors of the sources know about the party itself, such as it's official socialist position. The fact remains that for controversial labels not used by the party itself, a source should explain more about excactly why the party is ultranationalist, and not just a follower of a more moderate form of nationalism. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, (ultra)nationalism is not mutually exclusive with socialism. See left-wing nationalism for more. As for the ARF, the party literally calls for a United Armenia which includes territories of Armenia's neighboring countries. For most Armenians (including me), this is justified and rightful to at least some extent, but if that does not make it ultranationalist, than I don't what does. ----Երևանցի ^talk 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how WP:ASPERSIONS applies to EtienneDolet here. Its nuts to use Armenian Genocide denialists on Armenia-related topics other than the Armenian Genocide denial article (talking about Michael M. Gunter). I think ED simply decided to call a spade a spade. Having said that, there are several RS sources out there that call the ARF "Ultranationalist" (a quick search[1]), but most of them, as far as I can see, are at least 10-20 yrs old. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That’s right. All these sources are outdated and there’s really no detailed analysis as to why they consider them “ultranationalist” (whatever that means). The claim that they’re ultranationalist is made by journalists who have no expertise on the topic and seem to have used the term on a whim without much thought into it. Hence why I removed it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Operation in Artsakh

“As of 2023, the party operates in Armenia, Artsakh, Lebanon, Iran and in countries where the Armenian diaspora is present.”

Second time commenting on here but this was the case for the article of Transnistria as well. The government of Artsakh dissolved in September following an Azerbaijani attack that seized the region. Not sure how to edit but just wanted to state 50.26.186.162 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph irrelevant to heading

The following is the first paragraph under the heading "Young Turk Revolution":

In the 1890s the party used terrorism against the Ottoman Empire and Russia with the goal of gaining an independent nation, more well known attacks occurred against Bedros Kapamciyan, the mayor of Van who was assassinated in December 1912, and the assassination of archbishop Leon Tourian in New York City on December 24, 1933.

Only the incident in 1912 is relevant to that segment and the source used is by a Turkish nationalist author. I would remove that short paragraph completely but I'd, if it has to stay, at least call for a better source and move it somewhere else in the article. AlenVaneci (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)