Talk:Ivan Dumbadze

Some changes

• Description of assassination attempt needs separate section, this is important event.

  Two paragraphs say about this impingement and the inadequate reaction of Dumbadze on it, when he set private houses on fire. I agree, it's important in the whole context of describing Dumbadze as an inadequate person. But in this case all other cases of Dumbadze's maladaptiveness may also require separate sections. I fear that following this way is beside the purpose. Cherurbino (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Added 2 references to NYT articles about assassination attempt and burning the house Thank you very much. Cherurbino (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Removed unverified assumptions about origin of Dumbadze's mother

   Done here they are (inserted a footnote). Kindly ask you to use {{citation needed}} templates in such cases. Bold deletions look unfriendly, look like censorship. Cherurbino (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Supreme Head" is not correct translation of Russian градоначальник, "prefect" would be correct translation

   Declined You are wrong at the root with градоначальник. Correct name of Dumbadze's position is главноначальствующий — that's what underlies "Supreme Head". See the letter of Stolypin here. Cherurbino (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• For description of conflicts with reporter Pervuchin and general Novitsky we have first-hand English-language account Wrangel-Rokossowsky. Before the Storm I Changed POV description to text close to this source.

  As you might have noticed before, I've already used this source in the article. What remained was only adding extra <ref name="WR" /> tag instead of deleting.
  However I would argue against your statement that Wrangel-Rokossowsky is a "first-hand English-language account". First, these are "memoires" written apart from historic documents, so W.-R. may sometime mistake in this book. Second, W.-R. is a biased source (his phrase "This was more than he could have gotten by selling his property.") speaks for itself. So I would insist to be cautios in relying only upon this source.
  
  Since a link to this source anyway exists both in the article and here, I see no reasons for keeping a vast qoutation from it on this talk page. Talk pages are supposed for talk, not for posting primary materials. Cherurbino (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Removed some totally unsourced, originally researched, statements and POV language. Attack pages are not allowed here.

   Question: Estimate "many" is unacceptably common. Needs clarification. Please, provide the exact list of your claims do discuss each of them, one by one. Again: don't be shy in using {{citation needed}} template. Cherurbino (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article is about general Ivan Dumbadze, not about URP, or Russian right-wing populist politics. I removed some links to the articles about "black hundreds" which do not even mention Dumbadze's name. This links are not relevant here.

   Done Upon revision of the bibliography section, I removed 2 links which were mistakenly copied with the categories list:
  1. Langer, Jack (2004). James R. Millar (ed.). Russian History Encyclopedia.
  2.Klier, John D. (2005). Richard S. Levy (ed.). Black Hundreds. ABC-CLIO. p. 71.

  — Cherurbino (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Added link to NYT article about assassination attempt. — Thank you very much again. You forgot that you've already informed about it above (see second entry). Cherurbino (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

--DonaldDuck (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Using primary sources, such as URP publications as facts may constitute WP:OR.--Galassi (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I don't know what this means:

• D resigned?
• D was forced to resign?
• D "returned to his office in yalta" - he resigned and then returned?

The following notice of resignation from the post of Yalta's head, which Dumbadze pointedly filed, eventually brought to the further improvement of his political position. The imperial family complained that they feel them insafe in their summer residence without Dumbadze, and a few months later he returned to his Yalta office.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Further issues

Many paragraphs are sourced to Google books snippet views of various Russian texts. Article text differs from referenced sources.

• Article text:"Historians called the regime established by Dumbadze the "dictatorship of the Tolmachyov-Dumbadze type", which featured authoritarianism, tyranny and violation of basic civil rights.". (ref 5)
• Source: "Policy carried out by Tolmachev (prefect of Odessa) and Dumbadze was called Tolmachev's-Dumbadze's dictatorship".
• Comment: multiple "Historians" but only one reference to Historical Handbook of Russian Marxist, 1999.

  Leo Trotsky (1926) [December 4 [O.S. November 21] 1909]. Карл Маркс и Росссия в 1909 г. L. Trotsky Works. vol. 4. Moscow-Leningrad. (biographical reference in a publisher's footnote) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

  Refs 6 and 7 are actually identical. It appears that text about Dumbadze in Historical Handbook of Russian Marxist was copied from this publishers footnote to the Trotsky's article. It's not clear, was author of footnote historian or not, but it is clear that he was extremely hostile to Dumbadze, because of his party affiliation.--DonaldDuck (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  A word "article" in English has dozens of meanings. Some "articles" are those from a biased black-hundredist newspaper "Russkoye slovo" (circ. <2-3.000 in best days) which you impose here as a source of an undisputable truth. And what you call an "article" above, is something from a book in hard cover, named «Collected works…» and printed at least in 20,000 copies.

  However it's not an "article" itself which matters here. Your comment, and your lexis take off topic. We are speaking about a footnote, which is written by an Editorial board of these "collected works". This board consists of many people, some of which are historians. So plural is a due here, whatever the name for the scope of educated people is chosen, and irrespective of "appears that was copied" 70 years after. Cherurbino (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  ???? I did not add anything from "Russkoye slovo".

  We don't know who this editor or editors were, were they historians or not. Correct identification of the source would be "Editor of Trotsky collected works called policies established at that time by Dumbadze...", not "Historians called..." --DonaldDuck (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Even when you replace single "I" with a plural "we" — it doesn't mean "everybody". Please look at the front pages of "Collected works" of 1926 who were the editors. Add Zurabov, Lyubimov and Roumer mentioned seperately in a preface. Add names of Felshtinsky and Chernyavsky for the reprint edition (were that you, who insisted on removal of an ’extra link’?)… I am not obliged to make abundant references for the books accessible in libraries. I'm not even obliged to provide a google books' link. I do that only to facilitate the search for those who look for further information. Not for those who seek for every possibility to deny things obvious for the readers having an experience with libraries.

Cherurbino (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text: "Dumbadze imprisoned, expelled from Yalta and declared political unreliable many people. His victims were mostly educated people, from the middle class and even nobility; as an elite resort, Yalta had almost had no proletariat. Soon Dumbadze's arbitrariness had pushed the situation to the limit."
• Source: no sources

  Re: "Dumbadze imprisoned, expelled from Yalta and declared political unreliable many people" — by coincidence, it was somebody DonaldDuck who once inserted a reference to the source of these words, a well-known pre-revolutionary encyclopedia (""Думбадзе Иван Антонович". Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (help)") on the Russian page. Cherurbino (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Re: "His victims … " up to the end: i) removed "victims" to provide neutrality; ii) please see a new version I've just posted instead:

  Yalta was an elite resort without large factories with their proletariat. So many people whom Dumbadze imprisoned, expelled from Yalta and declared political unreliable^[1] were mostly people from the middle class and even nobility

  where "even nobility" is Privy Councillor Pyasecki; "^[1]" is a reference to "Biographical Dictionary". If necessary, I can also put a footnote from "Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary" to confirm a statement "no factories". Cherurbino (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text: "Horses, coachmen and Dumbadze himself were scratched, with no serious wounds." (ref 2,8)
• Source : "Dumbadze was slightly shell-shocked and scratched (piece of his cap was torn away by the explosion), coachmen and horses were wounded."
• Alternative source [1]: "Col. Dumbadze, commandant of the garrison here, was slightly wounded and his Adjutant and his coachman were seriously injured"
• Alternative source (ref 10): "General Dumbadze's eardrums were injured by the detonation, and about a year later he took leave for a few months to consult ear specialists in St. Petersburg and Germany."

  In addition to the other, one more book, based upon documents from the Historical Archive of Russia. A diary of Bogdanovich; an entrée into the highest circles, she was then in Yalta, her description directly follows the words of Gvozdevich, a local police officer. The following details also coincide with other sources:

  Bogdanovich A. (1990). Три последних самодержца. Moscow: Новости. p. 811. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

  I was wrong including Dumbadze into the list of injured. Only a visor (peak) of his forage cap was torn off. "By explosion" is questionable (why not head? imagine a visor; rather, the horses trampled a flown away cap. Another exaggeration, customary for Wrangell-Rokossovski). Anyway, I added in a footnote: "However the coachman was wounded in his eye and the adjutant in the leg". As for the horses… the word "crippled" is used even when a horse stumbles and breaks her leg, so these are not horses whom we are writing about here.

  Re: "he took leave for a few months to consult ear specialists" — there's no direct connection between this trip to Baden-Baden (?) and this explosion. If at least from 1903 Dumbadze attended the target practice of his regiment and then of Yalta garrison (if not to mention a shell-shock in his anamnesis of 1880s) — there's no reason for Wrangel-Rokossovsky to implicitly suggest this small explosion (which he obviously exaggerates) to be the only cause of Dumbadze's problems with otolaryngologist at the age of 58. Cherurbino (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  I replied in this section. --DonaldDuck (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text: "Dumbadze's actions provoked indignation, and the owners filed lawsuits against him in the amount of 60 thousand rubles. To avoid a trial, Interior Minister Stolypin ordered all claims to be paid as "incidental expenses" of the Ministry of Interior."
• Source:"Owner and tenants filed lawsuits against Dumbadze, amounting to 60 thousand rubles, but Interior Minister Stolypin ordered to satisfy the claims from the Ministry of Interiour funds"

  Re: "indignation" — The same Brockhaus Encyclopedia reads: "On April 10 [O.S. March 27] 1908 [names of deputies, including Alexander Guchkov] filed III State Duma of the Russian Empire an inquiry concerning unlawful actions of Dumbadze" Cherurbino (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Re: "To avoid a trial" —  Done: changed to "Trial was inevitable, but Stolypin…" Cherurbino (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  It is not clear, was this Duma inquiry about the burning of the house or some other case. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  "not clear for you" doesn't mean "for everybody". Please read the books carefully.Cherurbino (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text: "He continued using the same presessive and punitive methods in suppressing the rebel highlander peasants of Georgia."
• Source : no source

   Fixed: "The official statement of Dumbadze that he'll "destroy every building, from which anybody shall shoot or throw a bomb" reminded presessive and punitive methods of suppressing the rebel highlander peasants of Georgia"

  Quoted text is taken from Wrangel-Rokossovsky (I remember you called it a "first-hand" source). War methods of Russian army in Caucasus are widely known. Cherurbino (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text : Other actions taken by Dumbadze were questionable as well. In violation of both the civil laws and the norms of an officer's honor Dumbadze challenged a civilian, a local journalist named Pervukhin, toa duel. Afterwards, he openly bragged: "Now I'll get rid of him without a warrant of deportation". (ref 10)
• Source : "A reporter, Pervukhin, severely criticized General Dumbadze's actions, in the columns of a local newspaper. Instead of deporting Pervukhin, General Dumbadze challenged him to a duel. Dumbadze told my father that he would get rid of Pervukhin without order of deportation... Pervukhin left Yalta in a hurry"
• Comment : source don't say anything about violation of laws or officer's honor.

  I agree, sources say nothing. I also suppose you are aware of the fundamentals of the "honor of the officer of the Imperial Russian Army" and you must agree that challenging civilian to a duel is worse than mauvais ton for a Russian general. You cannot also deny that duel was an offense against the laws of the Russian Empire.

  But since Russia in the eyes of the other world is sometimes treated as an extravagant country, with no respect human values and with no firm legislative framework, I consider this remark to be nessary here. Otherwise somebody may perceive summoning to a duel in Russia of 1900s as a normal way of conduct.

  Special remark should be made around a certain bias of Wrangel-Rokossovsky. He contraposes the "severeness" of Pervukhin's critics to Dumbadze's escapates. You know (and most people don't) what this "severeness" could actually mean "in the grip of Russian censorship" of 1900s. Mocking "Pervukhin left Yalta in a hurry" — another point of source bias: author transparently sympathizes Dumbadze. Cherurbino (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text : "Dumbadze also admitted to publicly insulting officer senior in rank to him and other non-subordinates, among them the Governor of Taurida, General Vassily Novitsky, who had originally entrusted Dumbadze with the power of supreme military command in Yalta. Novitsky acting as the senior official in the region in the absence of Dumbadze, found no legal grounds for Dumbadze's expulsion of some persons, and allowed them to return to the Crimea. As a result of disagreement between them, Novitsky was expelled from the Crimea himself." (ref. 10)
• Source : "General Dumbadze's eardrums were injured by the detonation, and about a year later he took leave for a few months to consult ear specialists in St. Petersburg and Germany. During his absence, Novitzki, Governor of Crimea, gave permission to a number of persons who had been deported to return to Yalta. At that time it was rumored that Novitzki's honesty could be disputed. As soon as General Dumbadze came back for duty after his leave, he demanded the Governor to give an explanation for his actions. "I deport, and you return, the same people!", he exclaimed. In the course of the ensuring quarrel, General Dumbadze ordered the deportation from Yalta of Governor Novitzki himself, although he was his superior - Novitzki left Yalta, but appealed to St. Petersburg."
• Comment : source don't say quarrel was public or Dumbadze's words were insulting.

  "public" applies not only to Novitsky, but to Beckmann as well. I wonder, how would Wrangel-Rokossovsky know about this quarrel, were it exclusively private and "in whispering" :). The presence of subordinates is enough; and reprimanding the senior rank and position is an insult by definition of Russian Army Manuals (similar to U.S. Soldier's Code, requiring to treat seniors with dignity and respect etc.)

  Although this Russian text looks like a reverse translation from our old friend Wrangel-Rokossovsky ("В ходе гарантированной ссоры генерал Думбадзе приказал выслать из Ялты Губернатора Новицкого, своего непосредственного начальника" — "As a result of inevitably ensuing [lit. „guaranteed”] quarrel general Dumbadze ordered to deport his immediate superior Governor Novitsky from Yalta") I think no further comments are necessary here. — Cherurbino (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Article text : "The most scandalous case involved the Governor-General of Finland, a general of cavalry named Beckmann whom Dumbadze publicly insulted. Again no significant reaction followed either from Nicholas II – who was the Grand Prince of Finland – or from the imperial ministries, and General Beckman was forced to resign.[ref 11] This exacerbated the relations between the Empire and its autonomous province, promoting the growth of further secession tendencies there."
• Source : "...telegram of Yalta governor Dumbadze, adressed to Beckman, in which Dumbadze said:"...""
• Comment : Again, it's Cherurbino's own original research that the telegram was insulting or promoted further secession tendencies. This is not in source.

--DonaldDuck (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why "again"? Nothing original, you might be aware of the concept of the officer's and General-Governors' honor to which every public censure of actions is a moral damage and insult.

  I'm not going to discuss my interpretations of sources, concepts of honor, legality etc. This would be WP:Original research. Just remove everything in the article text that is your original work and not supported by sources. Or I will remove it. --DonaldDuck (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  I consider this statement as your refusal to search for a compromise, expressed in an improperly ultimative manner. In violation of your own promise "I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page" you immediately (just an hour or a few after) resumed editing the article, without waiting for me or anybody else to answer here. I've warned you afterwards upon that misproper conduct. Cherurbino (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Well, respected DonaldDuck! I finally came up to the end (at a first approach; tomorrow I shall revise your questionary again). I must thank you for your claims, for they helped me to improve the article with many useful references.

This work also helped me to discover the background of your assessment about W:ORIGINAL. By coincidence, most of your quotations come from a single source, Wrangel-Rokossovsky. BTW "prefect" (on which you insisted as a name of Dumbadze's position) is also taken out of there. Relying upon a single source is not a good idea to Wikipedia. I've already shown above a certain bias of Wrangel-Rokossovsky; against Dumbadze this is the eulogy, panegyric. Wrangel's propensity to adjectives in the superlative form and other means of exaggeration (sample list on request) reinforces this opinion.

Meanwhile you may see I haven't rejected Wrangel-Rokossovsky as such. I used some of the facts he mentions to provide a comprehensive approach.

However I do not want to look an old bore. I can pick up Finnish sources confirming the "growth of further secession tendencies" exactly in connection with a known scorn to Finnish authorities, which "exacerbated relations with the Empire". And Beckmann is a name that can not be silenced in this context. But I shall not do that. I delete this sentence not only to show a good will. You were right (although you did not say this): Finno-Russian relations are not the topic of this article. They deserve a special and separate study. Thank you again, Cherurbino (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Other issues

• Text of the leading paragraph: "...notoriously known for his antisemitic and extravagant escapades"

  Let's sum up: what are Dumbadze's deeds, for which he is known best.

  1. Army General with an experience in the Caucasus. Did he "pacify" any "notorious" gang there? Shamil surrendered in 1859; the Caucasian War ended in 1864, or 5 years before Dumbadze was born. The situation was calmer than now, minor skirmishes. And after a head wound and concussion in 1886 — a rear position of court-martial in a regiment. Next, "the first great war of 20th century", a Russo-Japanese War (1904-5). Record of service says "participated"… well, what about medals? Herioc deeds of his 16th ("Emperor Alexander III") Infantry Regiment? Unknown. So, if he were not appointed to Yalta, nobody would know his name.

  2. "Attempted (and failed) assassasinaton". In 1900s there were about some dozens of such. Ask with Google frequency of occurrence of their names, and try to find an explanation of the predominant result on Dumbadze. So, it is not failed attempt what matters here.

  3. "Supreme Head of Yalta" — «ay, there's the rub!» Considering in a detail view: a new road paved through the mountains? built cable tram like in San Francisco? Alas. Only scandals, one after another. Sets houses to fire. Patronizes anti-Semites, promotes their press which calls for pogroms, for murdering and expelling Jews. Harboring the organizers of the assassins, so that America speaks about it. What more? Insults generals and Privy Coincilors. Insults Duma. Insults Senate.
  "More" is dozens of a smaller-scaled stories which I left behind this article. Because of historic insignificance of some policeman's wife, whose only guilt was that she abused the makeup in the Highest presence of Emperor. Costs: her expulsion from Yalta, and for her husband - a loss of career. And many more other stories like this.

This is what people usually call a notorious and scandalous fame. You often mention "attack article" — I shall argue that this is more applicable to the persons having a present or past historical significance. Like Berlusconi, Zhirinovsky… Because these persons have something no less significant in their background. These are their real virtues which may counterbalance certain "dark sides". Hence, "attack article" is when negative aspects are exaggerated versus real virtues, comparable in scale. In the absence of latter, only one thing remains: "notoriously known for his antisemitic and extravagant escapades". Alas. Cherurbino (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• From the American Jewish Yearbook, 1914-1915 (Page 59.), August 28: "At Yalta, the Prefect, General Dumbadze, in synagogue denies anti-Jewish sentiments." This should be included into this article.

  The authenticity of this event is under great doubt, for it has not been confirmed by any Russian newspaper. I must remind the larger context from page 257 of the "American Jewish Yearbook" for 1914-1915, which is a digest of both confirmed and unconfirmed news, sent from its correspondents in the nervous atmosphere at the wake of World War I:

— 16 [Aug.] Reported that Russian Emperor issues manifesto to " my beloved Jews," in Russian and in Yiddish, calling on them to volunteer in the Russian army, as Jewish and Russian interests are identical, and promising extension of rights. Report later denied
…
— 28 [Aug.] At Yalta, the Prefect, General Dumbadze, in synagogue denies anti-Jewish sentiments and promises protection to Jews

• Formally, last report was not denied by "American Jewish Yearbook" (AJY) correspondents. Actually a confirmation, non-derivative to "AJY" must prove the second report, which looks just as fantastic (if not anecdotic) as the first one. Any other confirmed reports about governors or city mayors in Russia making similar public statements? (I don't mean Purishkevich, he is a politician of imperial scale). Most that Russian regional-scaled officials did was attending street rallies of the Jews.

  Anecdotal background of this rumour is proved with the following:

  Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

  — Psalms, 1;1

  By no means could Dumbadze, a faithful Russian Orthodox transgress this ruling. No bishop would give him a blessing for such sin, as entering the premises of the synagogue, whatever the speeches he intended to say there.

• A large article about Yalta and its synagogue in "Jewish Encyclopedia" does not mention this unordinary event, which would otherwise be notable and significant in a life of ~120 jewish families which were living in Yalta by that time. — Cherurbino (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Again, it's your own analysys of the Bible. If you think that the source is not completely reliable, it may be added "According to American Jewish Yearbook, Dumbadze denied antisemitic sentiments". But it must be included. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, it must not be included, since it is a WP:FRINGE (cf. junk food news and silly season)) marginal, irrealistic rumour. Speculation about Russian Orthodox general delivering a speech at synagogue (!!!) was not supported by any other reliable independent source, both in Russia and abroad. Consequently, statement "denied antisemitic sentiments" needs other supporting source as well. Cherurbino (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  One source is enough. American Jewish Year Book is "regarded as the authoritative record of events and trends in Jewish life in the United States and around the world by many Jewish organizations." It is not a fringe source. You should, probably, ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --DonaldDuck (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• Why was the sentence about Pyotr Voykov involvement into the assassination attempt removed? The source was Voykov's biography article from Deiateli SSSR i revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia Rossii: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' Granat. Moscow, 1989. This is reprint of biographies from the 1920th Granat encyclopedia. It was semi-official collection of autobiographies and authorized biographies of leading communists, no reasons not to believe it.

  I remember your first proposal: "Description of assassination attempt needs separate section, this is important event" (see above). Two persons, Dumbadze and Voikov are incomparable within this article to afford further promotion of the latter (unlike Pyasecki, Beckman and other noblemen equal or higher in rank than Dumbadze. Entering into too minute details concerning this assassination is hardly justified. If you want, you may write a separate article about it, where Voikov, Novikov and others will deserve more article space. As for the reference itself, it does not add anything new to Dumbadze as the main hero of this article. Cherurbino (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• [[:Category:Attempted assassination survivors]] and [[:Category:Russian terrorism victims]] should be added. --DonaldDuck</nowiki> (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Done Thank you for asking that permission! However I've never had anything against adding (the more category). Deletions were what bothered me a lot more.

  Also sorry for my intrusion in your text here with <nowiki> — please use this technique to avoid talk page categorizing. — Cherurbino (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Assassination attempt again

Now article text is: "Dumbadze was not injured; only a visor (peak) of his forage cap was torn off by explosion". Injuries af Adjutant and coachman are omitted. Article gives impresion that no one was hurt.

Now look at the sources.:

• 1)NYT [2]: "Col. Dumbadze, commandant of the garrison here, was slightly wounded and his Adjutant and his coachman were seriously injured."
• 2)A.Ivanov "Dumbadze was slightly shell-shocked and scratched (visor (peak) of his forage cap was torn off by explosion), coachman and horses were wounded"
• 3) Wrangell-Rokassovsky "General Dumbadze's eardrums were injured by the detonation"
• 4) Moskovskie novosti [3] "colonel Dumbadze injured"

All sources say that Dumbadze was injured. Cherurbino, you are continuously inserting text that is opposite to what the sources say.

• Information that adjutant and coachman were injured must not be omitted.
• Information about Pyotr Voykov involvement must be included. Voykov is prominent communist and source is reliable. This is not minute detail.
• Separate section for all this is needed.
• Cherurbino, why you removed Category:Russian terrorism victims?

--DonaldDuck (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Victim would denote one killed in common usage. Considering just how iffy ID's injuries were - he doesn't qualify.--Galassi (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Injured person is also a victim. --DonaldDuck (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherurbino at some point agreed to add this category. --DonaldDuck (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DonaldDuck! Juggling older and newer diffs is not a good way to dispute. Let me remind you that I corrected my mistake after that diff, and deleted the ":Category:Russian terrorism victims" again. And after that you've already asked me "why" did I remove this category. Now I must explain again, agreeing with Galassi: calling person having a minor scar ’a victim’ is an exaggeration, leading to a disbalance, to a distortion of the neutrality. As well as to snatch a piece about failed assassination out of historical context, making a separate section out of it, inserting lots of names, not worthy to be mentioned here. Let me repeat: if you insist, be WP:BOLD and write a separate article upon this event. Placing a link to it in this article. Cherurbino (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Four sources you mention: a next-day report from Russian newspaper and its echo in NYT are primary sources. Wrangell-Rokassovsky is a biased memorialist, and A.Ivanov is a journalist who "forgets" about such reliable source as Encyclopedia published in 1914. Another memoirs (Bogdanovich) also confirm, from the words of police witness, that Dumbadze did not get any serious wounds. Facts, that a few minutes after Dumbadze effectively performed all the functions of a military commander also indirectly refute the hypothesis of an "ear shock" or another damage bringing incapacities and disabilities common in similar cases. Cherurbino (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't agree to make small separate section about assassination attempt, but offer me to write whole new article about it? There's just not enough information about the assassination attempt in the sources to write a new article.--DonaldDuck (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems you tend to ignore all the sources that don't fit your POV. Wrangell-Rokassovsky is "biased", Ivanov is "biased", NYT is "primary source", Moskovskie novosti is "primary source". 4 independent sources confirm that Dumbadze was injured, but no source is good enough for you, if it doesn't fit your own POV.--DonaldDuck (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

• "Black hundreds" is vague general term, used for all right-wing populist organizationas in early 20th century. Article describes only Dumbadze's relationship with Union of Russian People, but not other such organizations.
• "Black hundreds" is derogative term. Such terms should be avoided per WP:NPOV

So, "Dumbadze and Black hundreds" section title should be changed to more precise and neutral "Dumbadze and URP". Similarly "black-hundredist newspapers" should be changed to "righ-wing newspapers" etc. --DonaldDuck (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BL as a term is totally neutral and sufficintly common here, so it shall be used. It is neutral in Russian too.--Galassi (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Donald, you are not exactly a spring chicken on Wiki, and you know that you must seek consensus here (which does NOT mean a vote, but a version acceptable to all involved parties...).--Galassi (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not neutral term. 1) The Black Hundreds (a derogatory term coined by their opponents..., 2) ...the derogatory label of the "Black Hundred" --DonaldDuck (talk)

It is not considered derogatory on ru-wiki, and is commonly used there.--Galassi (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of "derogatory" on ru-wiki - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B.--Galassi (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Accoding to WP:RS, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. --DonaldDuck (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Let me remind, that among the first deletions DonaldDuck insisted upon was the removal on 15:53 2011-2-21 removal of the two following links to the books of modern U. S. scientisis:

• Langer, Jack (2004). James R. Millar (ed.). Black Hundred. Russian History Encyclopedia. Gale.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Klier, John D. (2005). Richard S. Levy (ed.). Black Hundreds. Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. Vol. 2. ABC-CLIO. p. 71. ISBN 1851094393. 828 pp.First I agreed with it in a search for compromise with you. But now I see the actual reason why you wanted to 'hide' even the names of these books of modern Anerican scientists. That is because in pursuance of the biased views you want to impose and to embed here you aim to declare "Black hundreds" to be a "derogative term"! For the names of these books themselves are the best counter-proof of this statement.

I strongly warn you against political censorship in English Wikipedia — especially when it is based upon the views which are still not fully supported by scientists (if not to say ’considered to be marginal’) in your own country. The name Black Hundreds still speaks for itself. And the discussion about to what extent it may be considered to be a version of Russian Fascism (started by American scientists) is not closed yet. Don't try to make "White Hundreds" out of the "Black" ones aforehand. Cherurbino (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

5 days ago you said that this "2 links were mistakenly copied with the categories list", now you are saying that removing this links is political censorship? --DonaldDuck (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning to DonaldDuck

Hi, DonaldDuck.

Just noticed that in breach of your late promise at the AnI board

Now I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page.

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:43, 22 February 2011

you resumed editing the article Ivan Dumbadze without waiting for my response to your cues. Meanwhile one of your statements published at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze

I'm not going to discuss my interpretations of sources, concepts of honor, legality etc. This would be WP:Original research. Just remove edeverything in the article text that is your original work and not supported by sources. Or I will remove it.

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

clearly sounds like an ultimatum, which violates the norms of dispute in Wikipedia. You should know, that WP:Original research is not applicable to the discussions at the talk pages, so your statement "I'm not going to discuss" can not be treated differently, as a general waiver of dispute procedures.

I also note that neither the Wikipedia community at AnI, nor me were informed by you about this your unilateral renunciation.

I strongly advise you to withhold from further edits. Besides WP:GOODFAITH I may guess some other motives may exist on your behalf, incliding ideology. Stating that allegedly

"Black hundreds" is derogative term. Such terms should be avoided per WP:NPOV

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

and giving your own personal political estimates of the sources to the forefront:

was extremely hostile to Dumbadze, because of his party affiliation

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:44, 23 February 2011

you "forget" that the a critical view upon Dumbadze's activities has been already documented in 1913 in such a reliable encyclopedic source, as «Brockhaus», the Russian counterpart to the 1911 Britannica (I place in quotes, because I've already proved that you are aware of this source). You "forget", that these are not "enemies of Black-Hundreds" in general, or of Dumbadze (as one of its known supporters) — but modern American scientists, who use the term "black-hundreds" to denote this extravagant anti-semitic political movement.

Most of your edits impose your biased WP:NPOV; they ignore encyclopedical and scientific sources in favour of biased memoir of Dumbadze's fan, of black-hundredist press, and the secondary materials based on the above. I'm going to bring all this issues to the broader community discussion to decide upon your capability to fill Wikipedia with an unbiased material. This article must be returned to its normal, unbiased state.

P.S.

You ignored more than 6 my replies. I'm waiting for your confirmations or objections. As for 3-4 "answers" you gave (including one ultimatum and one counter-question), I shall respond them in an appropriate time. Cherurbino (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Cherurbino (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherurbino. You were not answering at the talk page for 2 days. I thought that you agreed to my proposed changes.

You also said that you never had anything against adding to the article. I was adding information about assassination attempt (about Voykov involvement, death threats, injuries). --DonaldDuck (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What "2 days" are you speaking about here? Whom do you want to mislead? What you actually posted on 20:03, February 23, 2011 sounded as an ultimatum, not the counter-argument to dispute. Also, do not juggle with quotations: as for Voikov, I've posted counter-claims, against which no stronger arguments were provided by you. Cherurbino (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreadable

The above discussions between Cherurbino and DonaldDuck have become largely unreadable, because they have been inserting comments inside each other's postings. I am currently finding it impossible to figure out who actually wrote what, especially in the "more issues" and "some issues" sections. Please, people:

1. Every bit of text needs to stand directly adjacent to the authentic signature of the user who added it.
2. Do not intersperse comments of your own between paragraphs of another user, in such a way as to separate parts of their text from their signature.
3. When you quote another user, do not also copy the other user's signature, because that leaves the casual reader with the impression the other user himself added it at that point.

Some more points about conduct:

1. I see a sense of "ownership" of this article on the part of Cherurbino, in his references to other people asking "permission" to make some edits. Please keep in mind that WP:BOLD still applies here. Nobody is obliged to first ask permission to make an edit, or to first wait for another user to respond to a proposal.
2. It is also not legitimate to make blanket reverts of edits merely with the argument that they didn't have consensus or on a blanket charge of being biased [4][5]. Such reverts are too easily used as a means of filibustering and blocking article development. If you have objections to an edit, be concrete. Especially if another user has been making several unrelated changes together and your objections are naturally only about part of them, it is your responsibility to make it clear which aspects your objections are about.
3. Please, everybody, in the context of a potentially contentious editing situation, never make any edits without an informative edit summary.
4. Everybody is welcome to be WP:BOLD and make reasonable edits without prior consultation. However, if your intended edits are going to shift the (N)POV perspective of the article in such a way that a reasonable observer could predict they will appear unacceptable to some other editor, then you'd better make sure you discuss first.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "in his references to other people asking „permission”" — it was a 250% irony (not a humour), given the fact that in his first 18 edits DonaldDuck did not even bother to comment reasons for his edits and deletions. So I was just kidding with that „permission” which DonaldDuck was ritually asking for. Meanwhile, since the dispute has started here, and the compromise is sought, each party is expected to wait for explanations and proofs here (as you've noted above). Cherurbino (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)