The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is his nationality and where does he live? Badagnani (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted POV edits per WP:BLP hate sites are not reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this is[1] a reliable source, reported by AP and it needs to be added into the article about the Dadrian. If there another reliable source denying that this has happened, then that source too can be added in addition to the AP source. --Aynabend (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not answered my concerns at all. Chippolino who apparently had never had any contact with you made the change on April 14, I discovered it over a week later and reverted under two Wiki-rules. As you see no Armenian editor followed me and no one knew of my existance. But the same day you reverted my edit. There are hundreds of scholars on Wikipedia and you had never edited this article prior to my revert. Then Chippolina continued to revert followed by Baku87 who also never edited this article, Aynabend came and left a comment in the talkpage, he too never edited this article prior, the name had never written anything involving Azerbaijan to generate any Azeri interest. Those chracter assassinations of genocide scholars always misteriously appear at April of each year.
Onlyoneanswer, good faith should come not only when the object of argument is an Armenia-related article, but also articles related to Azerbaijani issues. In the case of latter we see brutal attacks and personality assasination all the time. So it would be fair if you (in general) showed that good faith the rest of post or pre-April 24 and then if we (again in general) do not return the same, then you have a right to complain. For example view this article and see how it is handled Igrar_Aliyev . Compared to pure POV in the latter, this particular source we are discussing here is the world-known source. Yes, I have viewed this article several times and the argumenst around it, but have never been involved personally. Also, please put your signature at the end of your posts for clairty. Best, --Aynabend (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Why should I bother about other articles? Dadrian is much more notable than Igar Alyiev the scholar, and Alyiev had recieved no positive review outside Azerbaijan. Each criticism becomes much more notable given that ciriticism of him outweight clearly the positive reviews. In Dadrian case, you supported an information which was never included in any description of him, beside two newspapers. That's because he never became famous for that, no one ever heard of it. Each of his articles and other works (which he has few dozens) singularly have become more notable than this incident, I don't see of any in the article. Bill Clinton article dedicate less space per the articles size for Lewinski Scandall regardless of the fact that that's what we heard about Clinton for several months. Also the information added in Dadrian's case is presented in such a way that people will conclude more than what he was accused. (chick and lips corner kissing, and this was attributed to 'cultural differences' at least by those who defended him)
If anyone doubts the existence of this article, we can ask the community to verify its existence. Asking for quotation of the full article is not correct. In fact, anyone can sign up for a Highbeam account now and check for himself. Here's the link to the article: [2] Grandmaster 12:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
They are mentioned twice in the article, w/o sufficient explanation what they are in this context.--Severino (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vahakn Dadrian. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
http://genhist.asj-oa.am/86/1/3-19.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
“academic sexual misconduct database” is not a reliable source and even uses a blog denying the Armenian genocide as a source, and the Times Union source makes no mention of charges being filed and admits it may have just been cultural differences confusion. Therefore, it’s WP:LIBEL.
This is notice that you need consensus for your changes especially for WP:LIBEL as Wikipedia takes libel seriously. Discuss in case of disagreements. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
*"Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg found that Dadrian had harassed a female student on April 24, 1990, the day the professor returned to the school"
Source clearly states to convicted sexual harrasment unlike your "Times Union source makes no mention of charges" idea. No, Times Union accept these charges, they just say "some students voiced in 1981 case". So clearly not libel. Crasyy (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou