Talk:List of attacks by ASALA/Archive 1

Links to Extremist Sites

I do not see why this article should link to TallArmenianTale and the like, which is a blatant hate site. -- Augustgrahl 04:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hate sites have to go, and the list moved to ASALA page. --Vartanm 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hate sites" are staying. See bottom of Kurdistan Workers Party linking to pkk.org, a hate site. -- Cat ^chi? 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the PKK site is acceptable because it is being done on a page about the group in question. If you were to make an article about Tall Armenian Tale or Armenian Reality and link to their respective sites, that'd be fine. It would help to illustrate the group's view of itself and stated point of view. Using hate sites for external sources of information for articles such as this is inappropriate. -- Augustgrahl 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Current title

Much better, I think, for List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. - Denny 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Content

Third party sources should stay, not to mention the reliability of the sources should be questioned, websites that promote racist or inappropriate comments should not stay etc or extremely biased. I removed many because they are no where near the criteria of an encyclopedia entry and should be removed immediately when seen. Artaxiad 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true. It's possible to compile a list like this if reliable sources are used. Using obviously biased sources lowers the reputation of Wikipedia - which is supposed to be a reference work, not a blog - and violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SOAP. The main ASALA article does a reasonable job of avoiding these problems - which is why I question the necessity of having this list in the first place. Why not just add content to the page we already have? I'm really not impressed by users who try to start this page off in 1968 when everyone generally agrees the ASALA was only founded in 1975. There seems a disconnect between the title of the list and what it actually provides. It seems the main editors want this to be a list of attacks on Turkish diplomats by any Armenian group and are happy to rely on the ASALA's own propaganda when multiple groups claim responsibility. It also means the bloodiest incident involving the ASALA is omitted. The gap between title and content needs sorting out.--Folantin 08:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the linked source that is the start of the reported attacks. Do not remove sourced material. -- Cat ^chi? 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since 1968 is the scope of MIPT database as it doesn't cover anything prior. -- Cat ^chi? 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't believe I actually have to explain this to anyone, but let's see. The statement I removed read: "Since 1968, a total of 84 incidents have been recorded and as a result 299 people were injured and 46 people killed". The source you give for this says the ASALA was not founded until 1975. In other words, this is like having a "List of World War One Battles" which starts in 1907. Further investigation revealed the source of this absurdity. The site you used as a reference has a incident template which reads "1968-Present". As far as I can see, it does this for every terrorist group regardless of its inception date or whether it is long defunct. Take the Abu Sayyaf Group for example [1]. Same template "Incidents 1968-Present" - yet the group itself was not founded until 1991. Why this source has an obsession with the year 1968, I have no idea, but we are under no obligation to follow them. This is basic common sense.

The second problem you have is the one I've already mentioned, namely you can't decide whether this is a "List of attacks by the ASALA" or a list of attacks on Turkish diplomats only. If the latter, then you can't use the statistics "299 people were injured and 46 people killed" because that is the grand total of all ASALA attacks including those on non-diplomats. For instance, the bloodiest incidents involving the ASALA were the Ankara and Paris airport killings which left a combined total of 17 people dead - AFAIK none of them were Turkish diplomats.

This is a basic problem of factual accuracy, which should be the primary concern of an encyclopaedia. I still see no point in having this poor duplicate of the ASALA article we already have and this kind of edit is doing nothing to convince me otherwise. --Folantin 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In any list there should be a satisfactory lead. If you feel the list is incomplete (I am well aware it is), you are welcome to help me dissect the MIPT database. Thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please summarize your arguments. -- Cat ^chi? 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary: (1) the introduction was patently absurd (now partially fixed regarding the year - although "Between 1975 and 1985" would be more accurate); (2) the list does not do what it says in the title as it only catalogues attacks on Turkish diplomatic personnel and "commercial installations". That being the case, the statistics you use in the intro are no longer accurate since they apply to ALL attacks by the ASALA regardless of target. Either change the title or expand the list to include all ASALA attacks. I hope that's simple enough. --Folantin 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the verifiable source, ASALA made that many attacks. Weather the lists reflects ASALA's current stats or not is irrelevant. This list will include each and every attack of ASALA in due time and is incomplete at the moment. -- Cat ^chi? 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then until that time you either get rid of those misleading statistics or delete the phrase "on Turkish diplomatic and commercial installations". --Folantin 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt article development. The information is sourced. Please either help with the development of the actual list or cease complaining about it's completeness -- Cat ^chi? 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outing indents) Please stop violating WP:AGF. I am assisting with the development of this article by ensuring it meets minimal standards of accuracy. You either find statistics that cover only attacks "on Turkish diplomatic and commercial installations"; or you delete the phrase; or you delete the statistics that cover the sum total of all ASALA victims. Otherwise the information you provide in the intro will be misleading. --Folantin 19:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with good faith, you are welcome to file a complaint. This list is under development. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the disclaimer on the external links to be in bold text, making it more visible, and I have stated that the contents of the sites are controversial. The previous disclaimer was too indiscreet and vague. -- Augustgrahl 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deboldified it, looks really ugly. -- Cat ^chi? 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the bold text should be included. An ugly warning is fine for links to sites with an ugly message of hate. -- Augustgrahl 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That section should just be removed. A load of links to dubious polemical sites doesn't do much for this page's appearance of neutrality. Just because garbage exists on the Web it doesn't mean we have to advertise it. --Folantin 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer itself should go. Please contribute to the actual list. I do not understand why people are so worked out about a few external site links. -- Cat ^chi? 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tallarmeniantale and similar sites are no more appropriate to link to than stormfront.org. Tallarmeniantale is a site devoted to slandering the Armenian people and promoting racism against them, this is its sole purpose. It is not just my own opinion that they are inappropriate, but that of several other editors as well. If anything should go it is the links. -- Augustgrahl 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Augustgrahl, those links are not appropriate to link and should not bee there. ROOB323 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and chopped them per the concerns expressed in the deletion debate and above. Otherwise this page has shown some improvement by using the decent-looking MIPT source. The links only drag it right back down into soapbox territory. --Folantin 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While Tallarmeniantale may be a site devoting itself in "slandering the Armenian people and promoting racism against them", just like how Al-Qaeda#External_links links to hateful content it is relevant to link to different views. Just because you don't like it does not make it irrelevant. -- Cat ^chi? 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to link to a site run by the KKK in an article about African Americans just to get a "different view," or put a link to a Neo-Nazi website on an article about Jews for a "different view"? This is no different. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a place to present the viewpoints of crackpots and bigots just because there are some people who think like that. -- Augustgrahl 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the people (targets of ASALA) were not killed? I do not care about the other content of these sites. As far as their ASALA coverage, they look more than fine. -- Cat ^chi? 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the point that ASALA killed people, and that it was a pretty bad thing. That said, the links still present their viewpoints in a biased, extremist, and racist way. The link to Tall Armenian Tale doesn't objectively list the ASALA attacks, it says that France "kisses Armenian butt," that Armenians are indoctrinated "from an early age" with feelings of vengeance, and portrays the Greeks as liars - "denying in a typical Greek fashion." Is this the kind of commentary you would allow on Wikipedia? If so, please read over WP:NPOV.I have said that it is unacceptable to link to these sites for this reason. Many editors here have agreed with me on this point. It is clearly against Wikipedia policy, which is not my personal opinion on what I believe is acceptable but are the policies of this site. Please refer to these, which are elaborated below. Feel free to follow the links to read the policies if you don't want to take my word for it. I repeat, adding these links isn't only inappropriate because "I don't like them," but because it is violating the rules of Wikipedia. -- Augustgrahl 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For Cool Cat. Why those links won't be appearing on this page (extremely short version): (1) clear consensus; and (2) -this is the clincher- policy, i.e. WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NPOV (see section below for details). End of debate. --Folantin 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outing indents) There was a clear feeling during the deletion debate that the dodgy links should go, especially Tallarmeniantale with its race hatred (and hilariously inept Batman reference). Looking at the Al-Qaida page, I don't see any links to sites implying all Muslims are terrorists and support Bin Laden, which would be a rough equivalent. In any case, remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument. --Folantin 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I just thought that since those are just lists, that would be fine, after making some note. It is better to remove them, good that we did. deniz^T_C 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Just out of interest, Wikipedia policy on external links says:

"Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic... Some external links are welcome ... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified....Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

Of particular interest are "links to be avoided":

2.Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research (see WP:RS).

11.Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. --Folantin 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, here is Wikipedia's official policy regarding links to extremist sites [2].

"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. -- Augustgrahl 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For us to link to these sites is entirely inappropriate: these sites not only violate EL but also their inclusion violates the "undue weight" of NPOV. The sites in question cannot be taken seriously as a provider of encyclopedic content. They have, self-evidently, no purpose other than to promote an agenda and to spew bile. Reliable sources only, please, that actually add something to the article in question. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.armenians.com/asala/events.htm

This website lists some of ASALA attacks. Is it a credible website? deniz^T_C 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like those are also from MIPT database. I haven't checked throughly tho -- Cat ^chi? 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)