Talk:List of attacks by ASALA

Third party sources

I removed both Turkish ministry of turizm and culture and Australian-Turkish media group as sources. Please use third party sources. Neither of those was third party. VartanM 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about Australian ... but Turkish ministry of Culture is reliable. Also please use same standards for all the articles (eg. ones sourced by say, Armenian authors etc. ) Even primary sources are welcome, when one is careful when using them. Deniz^T_C 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Denizz, you know that the Turkish government was the primary target of ASALA right? Turkish ministry of anything can't be considered as neutral in this article. This is not about Turkish or Armenian sources. This is about using reliable third-party sources. Right now I'm still thinking whether revert you or add a POV tag to the list. VartanM 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say it is a third party. I think a governmental (be it Turkish, Armenian, or whatever) office/person is reliable when making statements. That source seems to be a compilation of events, just like the one we are doing here. I don't see any POV problems or anything else. Deniz^T_C 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkish government was the victim of the ASALA attacks, ASALA attacks were directed towards hurting the tourism in Turkey, you don't think ministry of tourism of Turkey would be a little biased? VartanM 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking too much. I think they would still have this list, if it was just the ministry of culture. Besides ministry of tourism would also be reliable. Lying about ASALA attacks won't help tourism anyway, not that they would have lied if it was so. Ill be away for a few more days. You may revert if you wish, but I would appreciate if you didn't. Deniz^T_C 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Denizz, but I waited almost a month now and nothing changed. Perhaps White cat, instead of making bogus claims, can provide reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkish governmental sources

White cat perhaps you would like to explain the revert? VartanM (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A source by any government is more than within WP:RS. Are you disputing the validity of the material? Those people did die. All I need to provide is one reliable source, and I have done so all along: a .gov source. -- Cat ^chi? 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revert included a hidden unsourced text, re-addition of atmg.org which is neither a governmental nor a reliable source. No Turkish government is a biased source in this article, just the way Armenian governmental source would be biased lets say in Khojaly article. You either have to replace the Turkish sources with reliable third party sources or remove the material altogether. VartanM (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkish government is a reliable source weather you like it or not. Even ASALA claimed responsibility over these attacks. Do you have a single reliable source contradicting the claims of my sources? No one is disputing these attacks had taken place. Check out September 11, 2001 attacks. See the kind of sources used there? You think any US source is completely neutral? Please pull the other leg. I do not know anything about Khojaly so no comment there. -- Cat ^chi? 14:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the removal, I have little knowledge on the subject at hand but I spent a few minutes reading said site and other than the wording of some entires it didn't have any glaring bias or other problems. As a source it should be fully replaced by entires from news papers with more information than provided but because of the age of the attacks might make it hard to find online sources. Being a government source doesn't automatically make it biased and unless bias of the page linked can be shown I think it should stand until replaced by better sources. BJ^Talk 02:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I must dispute the assertion that government websites are ever "reliable sources." :D

All kidding aside, given the history between Turkey and Armenia, the sentiment against using Turkish government sources for almost anything involving Armenia is certainly understandable, and I have no doubt the opposition is in good faith. Might I suggest filing an RfC for this problem, to find out what the community at large thinks about this? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A simple arbitration enforcement case had generated a full-scale flamewar over this issue. An RFC would be like shooting self in the foot. Armenia-Azerbaijan thing has been to RfAR twice. I do not see what good an RFC would do. Remedies of the arbcom case is more then adequate if applied at all.

The "sentiment against using Turkish government sources for almost anything involving Armenia" is a loaded statement not inline with WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored against information presented by Turkish sources. Consider USian sources on 9/11 article. Or USian sources on world war 2

Had there been a conflicting source that can also be used in the article. I had not been presented any such source.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What Kurt Weber said. As the archives here show, it's always been a struggle to get people to use reliable, neutral sources for this article. The Turkish government is obviously not a trustworthy source of information on Armenian issues. --Folantin (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely! Wikipedia is not a good place for propaganda like TalkArmenianTale and this one "source" on Armenian "terrorism". Andranikpasha (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkish government is more than an acceptable source for this article. This isn't in discussion. I am uninterested weather you like the sources or not. If you disagree with any content presented here please present a source to that end. If you can't do that, drop it. -- Cat ^chi? 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If all the comments didnt satisfied you're welcomed make a note for RfC! You can also represent TalkArmenianTall there as another "reliable" one. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in a flame war. Thanks but no thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The turkish gov POV is quite a significant one NPOV requires that it is meantioned in the article.Geni 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no question of POV here: none. This is a factual list. Opinions are not relevant. The only question is one of reliable and unreliable sources. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ATMG

I'm unsure about the government source, but atmg.org is definitely not a reliable source. It is unsuitable for verification purposes, and should not be readded. I strongly suggest that any readdition of the government source not be a full revert, for that would be a restoration of a clearly unreliable source. Picaroon (t) 01:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? MIPT disagrees as they credit them. According to tr.gov ATMG is listed under "Turkish Australian Organizations" [1]. So it isn't some random web page. -- Cat ^chi? 02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

MIPT also sites Azeri newspaper reports that ASALa is still active in South America. Which is not quite true since ASALA has never been active in South America and the organization has been defunct since 1985. Thats what I meant in one of my edit summaries that TKB is somewhat reliable. VartanM (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the information that is being linked wrong or not? I said about the source should be replaced but just removing it without a replacement because of the source with no regard of the the validity of the information is a bad idea. BJ^Talk 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a statement from atmg.org

"We hope to provide answers to endemic misconceptions in the West about Turkiye directed by our Greek and Armenian counterparts.

Our Objectives

To offer the Turkish view regarding the Armenian Problem based on facts and documents."

They don't even call it a massacre, the source is biased and is there to provide the Turkish point of view and deny the Armenian and Greek genocides. You guys should defiantly check the WP:NPOV. VartanM (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the information linked from this page biased in any way? (as I said the above some of the wording could be) BJ^Talk 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters the very first one isn't even a terrorist attack. VartanM (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination/murder of a diplomat can be regarded as a terrorist attack (see List of terrorist incidents and search for the word "assassination"). Then again "terrorism" can be used in a loaded manner. It isn't an issue for this article since it isn't in the scope of List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. That murder case should be an article on its own though.

Just because a site does not share your world view doesn't make it invalid. It isn't like we disqualify sites with Armenian bias that regard the "Armenian Problem" (your words not mine) as a genocide, massacre or whatever. I would use a site on ASALA by the Armenian government as well but there doesn't seem to be such coverage.

I use which sources I got, not which sources I or you might prefer. Are you disputing the validity of the material covered in the article? Do you claim the attacks in question didn't take place? Based on what? On occasions 3 sources are linked per attack. Also mind you this list is incomplete.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I said earlier that ATMG is unreliable. its a propagandist site on Genocide denial and Armenian "terrorism". If we're using a Turkish possible anti-Armenian site then why to not use also Armenian sources (why only governmental?) to represent the Armenian view on these incedents as Contemp. National Liberation movement and Armed struggle for Armenian rights etc? Lets use common standards, OK? Its a fact that the majority of Turkish sites on Armenian Genocide/ Armenian Cause and Armenian organizations are extremely biased as they based on simple denial. The same Turkish sources even wrote about a "genocide against Turks" then maybe to use also this "reliable" idea here at Wiki?Andranikpasha (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a single Armenian source covering the ASALA attacks? Well?

Do you have any disagreement regarding the content of this article? Are you claiming that these people did not die or that the listed attacks did not take place?

Just because other content (content I am not using in this article) on the sources I use do not agree with your world view does not invalidate them. The sources used are well within WP:RS.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, White Cat, there're many Armenian sources on ASALA. The last research was published by Prof. Vladimir Petrosyan one year ago and covers all the events of Armenian contemporary national liberation movement(his words). And it seems you're new here on Armenia-Turkey related articles but its something like a consensus to try to represent not so much biased sources. And if even we re starting to do it, then why to not represent the Armenian view too. According to "Armenian Cause" official encyclopedia (Yerevan), Yanikian was an "activist of Contemporary Armenian liberational movement" and killed not his guests (he never lived in Santa Barbara) but clients who wanted to buy 78-years old Yanikian's autographed lira. Also Yanikian was a well-known, awarded engineer and writer, a Genocide survivor who the loose most part of his family and his sister's family was burned alive in an Armenian Church. As Yanikian was an Armenian, in his bio the Armenian sources are even preferred to controversional Turkish ones.

Im not discussing the facts if they are represented by a third-party source. But to represent a source on Genocide denial and "Armenian terrorism" is not acceptible. the problem is with source! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing the validity of the content presented here in this article? If so please state it or else please stop this nonsense. -- Cat ^chi? 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Noone is going to dispute an "info" from a site considered an extremely unreliable. Different users said it earlier, White Cat! To discuss an info, we need a reliable source not this propagandist one on "terrorism". Andranikpasha (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly reliable. Is there any piece of info currently present in the article you are disputing? If so state that. Are you saying these diplomats did not die? Just what are you saying? -- Cat ^chi? 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can not use biased sources to back something as controversial as this! Find neutral sources. If you continue edit warring you will be reported. VartanM (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial? What is so controversial of the material presented here? Are you disputing that these people died? That these attacks happened? Yes or No? Why has none of you disputing the sources answered to this very basic question?

Removing reliable sources is a blockable offense and that is exactly what you people are doing. This ought to be interesting, getting reported by people whose only contribution to the article is revert waring to remove sources.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V VartanM (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ATMG offers an unbelievably biased account of Armenian history. It fails WP:RS and WP:EL. --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ATMG is a perfectly reliable 3rd party source. Even MIPT and Turkish government agrees enough to either credit or link to them. Is there anything on ATMG on ASALA presented in this article you dispute based on reliable sources? Are you saying these people did not die and these attacks did not happen? What is so biased on the linked pages? Can't one of you simply answer to this? Mind you most material presented here is cross sourced with MIPT and Turkish government. This article is on ASALA history not Armenian history. -- Cat ^chi? 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ATMG gone, Turkish government might as well stay since the content is not under dispute (even if the rest of that site is not particularly pleasant either). Can we stop edit-warring now? - if not, I'll start handing out blocks, because this is a totally ridiculous fight over rather a non-issue. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into who started this none issue? VartanM (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And Turkish government is not a third party source, I demand that it be removed per WP:V VartanM (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss this here but IMO there's no need at the moment for a POV tag - the actual content is not under serious dispute. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, White Cat is claiming incidents that had nothing to do with ASALA, the group wasn't even formed. If you want to settle this dispute, please use neutral third party sources, its that simple. VartanM (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Do we have anything better to use? Must do. If so, could people present these sources here on the talk? I would certainly prefer not to use the Turkish government website here if at all possible. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use that Turkish government page. The interpretation of history there is so tendentious and skewed that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to use it as a source. It certainly fails WP:EL. --Folantin (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove itA bit rushed at the moment, could someone else do this - but I rather do feel as if this page could do with more than one source. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The MIPT site is somewhat reliable, I say somewhat because they use the same propaganda sites to claim that ASALA is planning attacks against Azerbaijan. When its a common knowledge that the group ceased its existence in 1985. VartanM (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible there might be reliable sources for this in a library, but I doubt if you'll find much neutral information on the Net. --Folantin (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one[2] VartanM (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions from French Wikipedia, if anyone wants to research this properly:

• Gérard Chaliand et Yves Ternon, 1915, le génocide des Arméniens, éd. Complexe, 2006
• Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, New York, Greenwood Press, 1986
• Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects, Jerusalem, Westwiew Press, 1991
• Anat Kurz et Ariel Merari, Asala: Irrational Terror or Political Tool, Westview Press, 1985
• Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens, 1972-1998, Presses universitaires de France, 2002
• Yves Ternon, La Cause arménienne, Le Seuil, 1983 (following pages entirely devoted to the ASALA : pp. 228-253) --Folantin (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NB: I don't know how reliable any of them are, except Ternon (a bona fide academic). --Folantin (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about attacks that were carried out by ASALA not ASALA in general. I would welcome additional sources though. Is any specific incident in dispute here? Any claim that these people did not die or attacks did not happen? If so, please state it or else please drop it. Lets focus on improving specific issues.

I am tired of this endless complaint of "sources". Governments are verifiable and reliable sources. The tr.gov source shows the consistent view point of the Turkish government in regarding Turkish-Armenian history. That is a valid perspective per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not written from an Armenian or Turkish perspective. It is written in a neutral perspective per WP:NPOV. The article itself is required to be neutral however used sources do not have such a requirement.

-- Cat ^chi? 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not written from an Armenian or Turkish perspective. It is written in a neutral perspective per WP:NPOV" exactly'. As for sources see WP:RS and WP:V. Now be kind enough and remove the Turkish government source. VartanM (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Governmental sources by very definition meet WP:RS and WP:V. You come here demanding me to remove sources and thats your entire contribution. Find a source disputing the material covered - that these attacks did not happen and that these people did not die. Then we can talk on content. I don't pick sources based on your approval, I use whatever sources I find. You do not WP:OWN this article.
I removed ATMG as a compromise per my discussion with Moreschi on IRC. His tone was less than admirable but I decided to compromise anyways. I did not have to compromise but I did anyways. I used ATMG because it was a more neutral source (in their coverage on ASALA) than the Turkish government. Now I am stuck with the Turkish government. So don't you WP:RS, WP:V, WP:EL me...
Throughout the 3 year Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense which lead to two rfars and lots of drama, RFCs had been used completely to flame war a particular biased point of view. To pov push. I will take no initiative in such nonsense. I do not see an RFC fixing problems arbcom couldn't.
-- Cat ^chi? 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a list, and looks like you listed all that there is to it. Now you're trying to push non-neutral sources, I kindly ask you to use neutral third-party soruces per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:MPOV. You're off-wiki compromises with others has no value here, if you want a compromise you need to reach it here on this talkpage. Where Moreschi was clear about not using Turkish sources. You do realize that you have joined the AA nonsense right? VartanM (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish government is not a reliable source on Armenian matters, as legitimate historians know and as the account of Armenian history on the page linked proves. This is common knowledge. For the same reason we do not source material- however accurate it may be- on the activities of the Stern Gang or Irgun to sites which deny the reality of the Jewish Holocaust. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, to put it in a more abstract way, in order to maintain the overall credibility of an article we would not normally quote geological facts from a source that believes the Earth to be flat, even if the quoted facts happened to be true. Meowy 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So that means you are not disputing the accuracy of the source. You are just declaring all Turkish sources no matter how accurate they are on the basis of Turkish Govs position on the Armenian Genocide, an event that happened over 5 decades before ASALA started to exist.

In the case of "Earth to be flat" analysis, you can find plenty of sources stating the contrary. I am yet to be shown a single source that states that these attacks did not happen and these people did not die. Unless you source otherwise the used source is valid.

Your liking of it is none of my concern. Your world views on history or what counts as a "legitimate historian" is also none of my concern.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is just nonsense. It takes you nowhere. There were some events, some people died. If you accept that and the content in that site is correct, we can use that site. If there is wrong information in that site about this subject, it is not hard to understand your objections. But this thing you have been doing is just violation of WP:NPOV.Sağlamcı (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Founding date

According to the Turkish Government, MIPT, and ASALA itself (as quated by MIPT) the founding date is 20 January 1975. I have included this on the header. I have been bold in restoring this into the header. I ask you not to remove it but I wont revert again. -- Cat ^chi? 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As Folantin said in the edit summary of 08:19, 30 December 2007, 20 January was the date of the first attack. Logically, the ASALA would almost certainly have to have been founded before then. ... so that fact had already been refuted, and using kultur.gov.tr as the source was already advised against. What sources do you have besides the Turkish Government? I'm about to make a few changes to the article; I'll comment again once done. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am done for the moment. Note that there are now a few {{fact}} tags now on the article where previously "Tr MoC" was being used as a source -- the "Tr MoC" page does not say those attacks were performed by ASALA. The worst example is the 12 March 1981 attack which is not even mentioned on the Turkish Government website. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, John. It's been a real struggle to keep this one on the straight and narrow. At least we don't have the ASALA committing attacks in 1968 (!) any more. This is a dry, factual list which has little to do with "points of view". Accuracy is what counts. This is an encyclopaedia, after all. --Folantin (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what exactly the issue is, but perhaps we can use facts like dates and other things which are unlikely to be affected by bias? If you look at other articles, they have sources that have potential bias, such as US news coverage for the 9/11 attacks. Just my $0.02 --75.80.214.139 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Wikipedia policy

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Folantin (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that cant be used

I am just going to list sources I cant use. Since hardly anyone is paying attention to me, I'll merely list them.

• gov
  • http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313A781CAA92714FCE0A3216081A23BEF0D
  • http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/yuzyil/1970-1979.htm
  • http://www.atam.gov.tr/index.php?Page=DergiIcerik&IcerikNo=204
  • http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanak/donem22/yil5/bas/b086m.htm
  • http://www.egm.gov.tr/egitim/dergi/eskisayi/36/web/ataturk_cumhuriyet/Doc_Dr_sait_asgin.htm
• non-gov
  • http://www.atmg.org/ArmenianTerrorism.html
  • http://www.armenians.com/asala/index1.html <- Pro ASALA source

My GOD I can find sources... This one is without trying. -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

These are ligitament sources. If someone does not like Turkey, or their government, then too bad. That in itself is POV. So to say a source is not usable because its from the Turkish government, is not an actionable objection to call into question the reliability of a source(s). DragonFire1024 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment on sources

I think Geni made a very apropo comment that was apparently swept under in the tidal wave of discussion; the Turkish POV is obviously a major POV on this particular issue so theirs should be one of those included. This, of course, doesn't preclude the use of other sources even if they would contradict the Turkish sources -- if fact, that would be a wonderful way to NPOV the article. I don't believe we can simply discard the Turkish government as unreliable, but obviously, their POV should be balanced if possible. Shell ^babelfish 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a dry, factual list. It's not about opinions. It's about whether or not these attacks existed, whether they were by the ASALA (and not some other group) and if so and whether solid, reliable sources can be brought forward to back any claims. MIPT is reasonably reliable (it is neither Turkish or Armenian), the other sources are not. Cool Cat has demonstrated he has very little knowledge of this subject area and should not be editing this page. --Folantin (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipiedia articles are written using WP:NPOV. MIPT mentions that some of their information comes from the Turkish government. Does the same information suddenly become reliable because it comes through another organization? Shell ^babelfish 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. I would definitely say that this source gives an extremely biased account of Armenian history and cannot be trusted. --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that every source is of equal worth, simply that the claims of the Turkish government about which attacks were by the group and which counted as terrorist attacks shouldn't be discarded completely. Shell ^babelfish 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense. Per WP:RS, we are told "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Folantin (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And in general, government sources are considered reliable. Obviously there is bias in this case, so they should not be the sole reference, but that doesn't mean we discard their POV either. As you've pointed out, the majority of the article is based on MIPT's information as which complies with WP:RS. What I'm suggesting is that the sources are reliable but biased, you're saying they aren't reliable, which I don't see. Shell ^babelfish 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not using common sense. Yes, in general, government sources are OK but Turkish government sources are most certainly not reliable when dealing with Armenian history. The reasons for this surely don't actually need stating. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether "in general, government sources are considered reliable" (do you have a policy page for that, by the way?). I'm interested in this specific case and that Turkish government site is not a reliable source on Armenian history as any scholar who knew about the subject would acknowledge. WP:RS says we must use "reliable, third-party published sources". ( I am not sugggesting we "balance" this article by using Armenian sources either). --Folantin (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you've made up your mind about the source and don't believe their POV needs to be included, I'd suggest that more community input is needed since others appear to disagree with your interpretation. Has an article RfC been tried? Shell ^babelfish 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the archives here. As far as I can see, the majority agrees with me here over the avoidance of the unreliable sources White Cat has been pushing. We don't need "community input", we need scholarly sources. There is no need to waste time on an RfC. You still haven't shown the policy page for "government sources are considered reliable" and how that fits with the WP:RS policy I quoted. You still haven't shown to me why that page should be considered a reliable source on Armenian history instead of a propaganda site aimed at denying the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government might be a reliable source on traffic accidents in Ankara, say, but certainly not on this. --Folantin (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see one archive and that discussion was about a completely different source. Am I missing something? I'm confused by such a strong reaction to mentioning community input. So far myself, WhiteCat, Denizz and Geni have all disagreed with your assertions but you don't believe that warrants further discussion? Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat/Cool Cat's credibility has been ripped to shreds in these talk pages and elsewhere. He can't even use his own dodgy sources properly. You arrived here at his behest after he went on a forum-shopping spree which involved going to ArbCom and trying to escalate an almost completely unrelated and extremely tense dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. You don't appear to know much about the subject at hand or to have reviewed the evidence objectively. Then we have Geni, who made some fly-by comment about Turkish sources bringing POV which is supposed to cut some weight with me compared with more intelligent users like John V. Sorry if I'm not impressed. --Folantin (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- you bash CoolCat and in the same breath manage to malign me rather impressively as well. I'm aware of CoolCat's checkered past and honestly came in to this expecting to find the opposite. I offered my opinion, knowing full well the situations and tensions involved. Your opinion of my knowledge notwithstanding, I hardly expected to enter a discussion simply to get attacked for my viewpoint.

Moreschi makes an excellent point below; scholarly sources would be highly preferable to even what is there now. The point still stands that omitting the opposing point of view, especially in such a highly charged situation simply destroys the concept of NPOV. Take from it what you will, but I think I'll opt to avoid further hostility by retiring to another area of Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I made that same "excellent point" above where I even suggested some potentially reliable (book) sources. Had you read the page, you might have noticed that. You're "aware of Cool Cat's checkered past" - then you must know about his long history of POV-pushing on Armenian topics. And NPOV is achieved by using reliable sources, not by accommodating various special interest groups. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another thing -- would Turkish newspapers be reliable sources in your opinion? Shell ^babelfish 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the newspaper - I'm not especially familiar with the Turkish press. These are the wrong sorts of sources we're talking about here. Don't you think that sources of a little more academic nature would be more fitting? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, not when it relates to Armenia or Armenians. VartanM (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So then MIPT shouldn't be a reliable source either; they openly report their sources, many of which are Turkish newspapers. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Then remove the entries which use Turkish newspapers. As Moreschi said, "sources of a little more academic nature would be more fitting" or as policy puts it "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Folantin (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you scroll up the page, you'll find Folantin suggesting some print references, which look quite promising, to check (as opposed to random nationalist crap off the internet), at least one of which was written by a bona fide academic and had a good few pages devoted entirely to the ASALA. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

MIPT uses a Azerbaijani propoganda newspaper "Zerkalo" to claim that ASALA JCAG is functioning in South America and is preparing to attack Azerbaijan. Which is of course complete bull.... ASALA JCAG has been defunct since 85-86, it's leaders are dead, ASALA has never functioned in the South America and Azerbaijan was never targeted by the group. Thats just one example why MIPT is not reliable. But I never objected to using it, or else the likes of the White Cat would picture me as some kind of nationalist who tries to delete every single source from the article. VartanM (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Link for that, Vartan? I couldn't find it - certainly This page from MIPT classifies the ASALA as inactive and clearly states that it regards the ASALA as inactive from '87 onwards. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's on JCAG's profile[3]. Their last attack was on 1983, how ridiculous is the claim that they're planing an attack after 20 years. VartanM (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. To be fair to MIPT - I'm not in a position to comment on the validity of that claim (though it does look unlikely at first glance), but you'll note that MIPT have worded it (using such language as "reportedly", and so on) to imply that it's not them making such claims, it's other sources (Turk government among them). The actual claims MIPT itself makes are quite mild. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I never disputed MIPT. VartanM (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Turkish newspapers. If there is no good and or actionable reason to not use them as a source (other than third party stuff) then they must be allowed. Sources are not censured. Follow policy if you are to give reasons for not including them and back them up by policy. DragonFire1024 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)