Wikipedia

Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation/Archive 2

< Talk:Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 50.26.186.162 in topic Operation in Artsakh
Archive 1Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I added 7 sources to the fact that ARF is a radical party. All references are to Western neutral sources. My edit was reverted removing all 7 references, and citing the claiming that the word "radical" is not appropriate. However, WP:WTA policy does not list the word "radical" as such. Please, engage in discussion before removing legitimate neutral sources. Atabek 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, read the WP:WTA again.
"some words may mark tendentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may simply be the products of bad style" --VartanM 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, from which time did the word "radical" become "some words". Even democratic parties can be radical and zealous, there is nothing wrong here. Especially if 7 neutral scholarly references say so, there is absolutely no ground to claim it's not acceptable in Wikipedia. If Princeton University Press deems it acceptable, I don't see how it would be unencyclopedic here. Atabek 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, clearly you didn't read the policy. Is there a point for me to give you the link to WP:NPOV as well? --VartanM 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Parties can even be fascist, ultra-nationalist, ... let alone be radical. Normally what would have happened is Atabek would insert the word, then someone would add a fact tag, and sources could be inserted afterwards. Atabek did here a good job inserting sources immediately, though that number of sources might be overkill. He was punished for his this deed and called a vandal by the anon (proxy?) who removed the relevant sourced info. I think we should talk about that anon whose edit (calling someone arbitrarily a vandal, removing relevant sourced info) can be considered vandalism. We are talking about a political party here, so it should be obvious what radical means. DenizTC 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No Denizz, what Atabek did was wrong, He should of first brought the sources to the talkpage, where we could have discussed it and come to consensus. Him adding radical to the name of the political party in the lead and then complaining that it was removed was not productive at all. Controversial claims like that must first reach a consensus, before being added to the article.You can report the IP to the administrators if you wish. VartanM 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, please, provide a reference to WP:NPOV or WP:WTA, which claims the insertion of word "radical" with 7 referenced sources from Western publications violates any of these policies. Atabek 12:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

WP:WTA There is probably not a word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article. However, there is always an appropriate word and an inappropriate word, and, depending on the article, some words may mark tendentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may simply be the products of bad style

Lead sections of both policies. --VartanM 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

POV, VartanM, why should 7 Western sources citing ARF be suddenly non-neutral point of view? Who says that? The POV that simply opposes your POV is not necessarily non-neutral, is it?
Again, there is no proof above that word "radical", the definition of ARF based on multiple Western non-neutral sources is "poorly chosen". If prominent scholars choose to use this word, which actually applies to ideology of a political party, I don't see how Wikipedia would claim it to be "poorly chosen". This is certainly(!) not a basis for removal of 7 sources. Atabek 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a point of view here Atabek, it is you who suddenly decided that ARF is radical. As I said to Denizz, the correct thing to do was to discuss and reach consensus first, before adding "radical" to the lead of the article. That my friend is POV.
Atabek ARF was called radical in Baku, but ARF is a global organization. Labeling them as such in the lead is not neutral. Now can you please provide the 7 sources with quotes and we can discuss their inclusion and place in the article. VartanM 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, for some reason I don't see you achieving consensus here prior to removal of sourced text. Please, assume good faith and be consistent. Removing 7 neutral sources from the article is POV. ARF was called radical in Baku? Were those 7 references removed here [1] from Baku? What are you talking about? ARF was established in 1890 as a radical organization, and it wasn't even close to Baku. Atabek 16:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I'm very consistent. You should read the talkpage of that article. I had no problem with that sentence. Grandmaster requested its removal. I'm still patiently waiting for you to be contractive. I ask you to present sources you're pointing fingers to other articles. Either discuss it or leave this article alone. VartanM 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the ARF were radical - the "Revolutionary" part of their name indicated that. Revolution is a radical act. Meowy 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, they were founded in 1890. In that period most of the parties in all the region were revolutionary. Is there any other opportunity for a national-minority party in a despotic anti-human regime like Sultanic Ottoman empyre? Or do you think there was a democratic multy-partial system with its parliament and religious tolerance? Do you know how many Armenians were massacred during 1894-96? Sorry, in these conditions there werent an opportunity to found something else than Dashnaktsutiun! Andranikpasha 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but it is not the point. "Radical" is an accurate description of the ARF, and it is appropriate to use the word. I can't see how its use could be thought of as being in some way not neutral. Meowy 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that 'radical' would be accurate here, and I don't see the point with so many references (should we make them only one footnote using < br />'s ?) Also, Atabek, please don't bring other discussions here, it won't help us in improving the article. Let's talk about the matter at hand only. If you wish to do so, you can initiate a discussion on Vartan's talkpage. DenizTC 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe do some backtracking. I think it would be an accurate word to use to describe the ARF in its original form. And to describe certain branches of the ARF until recently. But over the years they have become less "radical" and more "establishment", so it probably would not be a suitable word to use to describe it today. Meowy 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Meow is right, I would also like to add that ARF is a multinational organization, they might be described as radical in one country but not other. Describing them as radical organization in the lead is POV. Please provide quotes from sources and we can decide the appropriate place for it. VartanM 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added back 6 sources which were previously reverted and removed by VartanM without sufficient explanation. There is no need to remove sources from the article, and if this is done, then perhaps a neutrality tag shall be inserted until all references are addressed and consensus is achieved. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, those sources refer to the Dashnak party of the 1920s (87 year time-span), not the current-day party which disqualifies the notion that it "is" radical, which by itself is an ambiguous term. And you have yet to adress Vartan's explanation, nor have you even read Meowy's. Calling it "insufficient" does not disqualify his argument. - Fedayee (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of User:Meowy has weight over 6 references citing the nature of ARF. But if you disagree with modern definition, we may certainly cite the sources and say specifically when and why the ARF was considered a radical party. I think rather than just plain removal of so many sources (and I have even more than those 6), this may be a more compromising approach. Atabek (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Church split

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please double-check my copyediting changes to the section called Exile, in which I found the church split confusing. I knew absolutely nothing about this church until reading this article and subsequently Googling a bit. Perhaps another sentence or two about church background here would be a good idea. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The subsequent re-write has fixed this problem. Finetooth (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

If forced to say whether the article is pro-ARF or anti-ARF, I would say pro, if only because the ARF is generally presented as honorific and working in the best interests of the Armenian people. I don't feel qualified to make substantial changes to the content, but I would suggest shortening the section called "Political philosophy and goals" by deleting the repetitions of general statements about social justice, democracy, and national liberation. This section in particular made me think of POV; it sounds a bit like a proclamation of "our goals" rather than ARF's goals as recorded by a neutral observer. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The subsequent re-write is a significant improvement and solves the problem, as far as I am concerned. Good job. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

122.105.227.78, please don't add random unsourced material unless you have a credible source behind it, thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel sentence about some banner from the ARF. Seems to be an apparent attempt at trying to show that Armenians actually rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. Plus, its choice of placement in the lead is not appropriate. The lead gives a resumed information on the article and not about what some banner supposedly said, which btw does not prove anything about the party's goals or motives. - Fedayee (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

user:86.150.215.69, I have reverted your addition because it is unsourced. Please back it up with one before re-adding it. Thanks! - Fedayee (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. It show an impressive level of WP:NPOV for such a controversial issue, and is also well referenced with WP:RS, well written, structured and illustrated. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Ortography

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have a question, wouldn't it be wise to include both the ortographies of Armenian, its just a suggestion so tell me what you guys think. Also someone I think misspelled Dashnaktsoutyoun, unless I am mistaken (which forgive me if I am, I am still learning the language) its Դաշնակցություն եւ Դաշնակցութեուն the latter being Traditional, the one of the page is spelled currentl Դաշնակցութիւն, I could be very wrong of course, forgive me if that is the case T Acamapichtli (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The organization is not solely diasporan-based anymore therefore the reformed orthography can be relevant as well. Դաշնակցութիւն is not misspelled. իւ was replaced by յու in the reformed orthography. For more information, check this discussion or the Western Armenian article. - Fedayee (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, and yeah I just saw that with the իւն, sorry learned Eastern mostly, now trying to learn about Western too (so thanks for the free help actually lol) and thanks for not face palming on my mistake :). But yeah lemme add that then if its cool. T Acamapichtli (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Already added both spellings. - Fedayee (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Arf logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Arf logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Arf logo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Collaboration

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am surprised why the article has no information about Dashnak-Nazi collaboration. It is important to include it for the ARF's historical evolution.Abbatai 10:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The article does have such information, including a wikilink to the Armenian Legion - it is in the "exile" section. Meowy 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

added neutrality dispute template

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

how can a racist organisation can be described as a people liberation army,there are even photographs of elements of this oganisation with chopped heads of turks massacred by this organisation,and there are many mass graves of turks in erzurum-kars etc. this page's language is worse than goebbels Girayhankaya (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a good start invoking Godwins Law. I didn't find the language too bad, can you provide specifics. AIRcorn (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, things like March Days (a 1918 massacre of thousands of Azeris by the ARF in Baku) are not even mentioned at all. --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

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[2]), 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

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

“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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation/Archive_2&oldid=1232958505"