Talk:Ruben Darbinyan

Unreliable source

Friends of Democracy is a self-described "propaganda agency"[1]. This source is an outdated hit-piece that doesn't have a publisher or even an author. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

is a self-described "propaganda agency" cherry picking the stuff is not helpful. It describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-sectarian, non-profit, anti-totalitarian propaganda agency." . In previous paragraph in the link you added it says:

it monitored various fascist- and communist-sympathizers, as well as materials, literature, newsletters, and correspondence collected by Friends of Democracy documenting the various activities, writings, and beliefs of those groups

The term "propaganda" is sarcasm here. Even their journal is named "The Propaganda Battlefront". No one is fool to call their publication as a propaganda agency ti discredit themselves.

Friends of Democracy is an "anti-propaganda organization.[1]

"It's an organization devoted to investigating anti-democratic and pro-fascist groups and individuals in the United States."[2]

One of the editor was well-known Armenian-American author and journalist Arthur Derounian who infiltrated among the radical groups. Later on he wrote best-selling Under Cover book.[3] Aredoros87 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"This source is an outdated hit-piece that doesn't have a publisher or even an author".

1) I don't get what exactly you mean here by saying "outdated". Darbinyan lived between 1883-1968, and the journal was published in 1944. What's wrong here?

2) Here you can see their publisher[1] and author is the FoD Inc.[2][3]

And here you can see the response from Hairenik to this journal.

Aredoros87 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling someone sympathetic to Nazism (which that quotation does not directly do) is very WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs multiple high quality sources, you have only provided one dubious source from 1944 that is very outdated (WP:AGE MATTERS). --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood the idea of WP:RSAGE. This is a biography material of a person who lived between 1883-1968. It's not a scientific, fashion, law etc article. The source I added is from the year this person lived. So, WP:AGE_MATTERS has no point to be discussed here. Regarding the other sources, I found more. Will be adding to the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Congressional Record is only mentioning what Flynn claimed, not making an original assessment. And you still need to provide reliable sources from the past half-century for these heavy claims. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and deleting sourced content under baseless accusations. First you cherry picked and claimed the 1st source was "propaganda agency". Later on changed the topic and brought the AGE MATTERS which was not relevant in our case. Then I added 2 more sources. And finally you complained saying that "Congressional Record is only mentioning what Flynn claimed, not making an original assessment". You deleted my 2 edits[1][2], under the message "no response from talk page and primary sources". I assume your WP:GOODFAITH that you didn't see I added quotations[3][4] that tells about Hairenik and Darbinyan particularly and nullifies your last complain. And you also claim that those 3 sources are primary sources. I suggest you to take a look WP:PRIMARY. If I would make OR and put the newspaper (Hairenik) as a source in that case it would be a primary source. But when I put a source that makes analysis from the newspaper it's secondary.

From WP:SECONDARY.

A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

If you still think that those 3 sources are not reliable, you are free to take them to WP:RSN and discuss there before deleting sourced content. Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY more carefully: are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

As I already said previously, the Congressional Record is only mentioning Friends of Democracy's claims, not independently claiming them. There is also the issue that "accused having sympathy to Nazism" is entirely your own original research and not something Friends of Democracy directly claimed. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. As you noted above: are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved which the journal I added (The Propaganda Battlefront) is not the original material/document, but a journal. So the newspaper (Hairenik) is primary source and the journal (TPB) is secondary. Because it contains analysis from the newspaper.

"is entirely your own original research and not something Friends of Democracy directly claimed"

I doubt if you ever read the source properly. Here are some excerpts from the source:

1. "Dashnags' Nazi sympathies are clearly shown in this sample quotation" P1
2. "Dashnag attorneys failed completely to produce a shred of evidence to support these Nazi inspired charges." P3
3. "Hairenik, extolling the Nazi regime, the myth of "Aryan" culture and white washing Nazi persecution" P3
4. "PRO NAZISM IN HAIRENIK, SEPT. 17, 1936" P3
5. Entire section "Dashnags and Nazi Germany" P5

Also I added one more source to the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll list all of the problems with these sources here.

1. All of the 1940s WP:PRIMARY sources are outdated and not reliable (WP:AGE MATTERS). A 1940s army magazine published by the American Department of War claimed that Heinz Guderian was Armenian,[2] which he obviously is not. Wikipedia prioritizes published secondary sources that can properly assess primary sources.
2. Murinson, if the genocide denying ("claims related to the traumatic events of 100 years ago", "support claims of Armenian victimhood") and xenophobic ("Armenians seem to exhibit amnesia about their brethren’s participation", "Hitler began cultivating Armenians to use their long-standing and strong anti-Semitic feelings in his plans and policies") writing wasn't already an unreliable red flag, lists a resume of being part of Turkish and Azeri organizations at the end of the source.
3. Another clearly biased agenda pushing and xenophobic anti-Armenian article, the author works for an agency in Azerbaijan.[3]
4. Vestikavkaza is just a Russian translation of the Hook article. And the editor in chief seems to have a conflict of interest.[4]
5. This source has an author that founded an Azeri political organization.[5]

Please stop pushing this defamation of character. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am really tired of your sourced content removal. You just keep doing it over and over again. And not only in this article.

1. We literally had the exact same conversation about WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE_MATTERS a month ago. And then you brought the same arguments to the table ~10 days after. Go read WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE_MATTERS, and then the conversation above, because I am not going to copy and paste same thing here.
   About the random "Army magazine" journal. No idea what to do with it. Did I add this as a source?! What kind of relationship does a random journal and this article have?
2. Is this the way that you discredit authors that you dislike? Because you did the same (unlawfully) thing here too. I genuinely wonder how come did you come to the conclusion that he is denying genocide and xenophobic. None of the sentences supports your claims. It's totally baseless.
   In the end of the article, it says him being Ph.D in a university in Israel. And then it talks about his books and articles. Where's the "Turkish and Azeri organizations"?
3. Do you mind being more specific? What makes it "xenophobic", "agenda-pushing" and especially "anti-Armenian"?
   He works for Azerbaijani branch of Sohnut – non-profit organization in the world. Working in a specific location doesn't make you unreliable.
4. What does this even mean? What kind of COI do you see here? May you tell more about it? The link you provided is just an interview of editor-in-chief. He just talks about his analyze of Russian-Azerbaijani political and economical relations, and predicts the future.
   PS: It's not a translation. It's the original text. Yes indeed it's the same article from the journal I added earlier. I just added this website as a supportive citation.
5. The link you provided says she's a founder of US-AZ cultural foundation. It's not an "Azeri political organization".

I see that you try to find slightest relationship between those sources and Azerbaijan in order to discredit them, on the other hand you seem to be very comfortable with Armenian Revolutionary Federation owned outlets being used on AA topics. When I complained about them you you were saying if they are not on the list of perennial, then they are reliable (ofc it's a baseless argument as noted on talk page by 3rd user).

As I said ~a month ago, if you still belive non of those sources are reliable, then you're free to go for WP:RSN. Aredoros87 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Because it's another 1940s primary source that proves how much false and outdated information unsubstantiated primary sources can have.
2. He refers to the Armenian genocide as "Armenian claims", that is clear genocide denial, plus the inflamatory/insulting statements. And he names a book he wrote about promoting Turkish and Azeri agendas.
3. You need to ask why a source that blames the war on "Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan" is biased and agenda pushing?
4. You need to ask why someone promoting closer relations with Azerbaijan has a COI?
5. Which is no less evidence of clear bias.

Because of Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan it's very reasonable that, if sources with connections to Azerbaijan and Azeri organizations are making claims that nobody else is, it's WP:UNDUE. I am pointing out problems with individuals, ARF is an entire organization.

And you are the one that should be going to RSN, because there was no previous consensus for the changes you are trying to make. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The source does not attribute the text you quoted to Darbinyan. It says that it appeared in the newspaper that he edited. I checked the original issue of Hairenik: indeed, the author of the relevant passage is someone writing under the pen name "Asatur", not Ruben Darbinyan. Revolution Saga (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the archive material. I cannot verify it since I cannot read Armenian, but I will be changing the sentence I added previously. Plus, I found some new sources too. Aredoros87 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)