| Revision as of 09:31, 22 November 2023 editAredoros87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,454 edits →Unreliable source: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:16, 22 November 2023 edit undoKhndzorUtogh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,938 edits →Unreliable sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :::::{{xt|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.}} | :::::{{xt|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 ] and discuss there before deleting sourced content. Thanks. ] (]) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | :::::If you still think that those 3 sources are not reliable, you are free to take them to ] and discuss there before deleting sourced content. Thanks. ] (]) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Please read ] 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. --] (]) 21:16, 22 November 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 of ''Hairenik'': indeed, the author of the relevant passage is someone writing under the pen name "Asatur", not Ruben Darbinyan. ] (]) 10:02, 11 November 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 of ''Hairenik'': indeed, the author of the relevant passage is someone writing under the pen name "Asatur", not Ruben Darbinyan. ] (]) 10:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 22 November 2023
 | Armenia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Ռուբեն Դարբինյան from hy.wikipedia. |
Unreliable source
Friends of Democracy is a self-described "propaganda agency". 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.
- "It's an organization devoted to investigating anti-democratic and pro-fascist groups and individuals in the United States."
- 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. 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 and author is the FoD Inc.
- 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, under the message "no response from talk page and primary sources". I assume your WP:GOODFAITH that you didn't see I added quotations 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)