Talk:Arman Manookian

Middle initial and ref
Why isn't Arman's middle initial included in this article for Google search purposes? Every time I type in Arman T. Manookian Google search, I get Frazer Art subject instead of the Wikpedia articles on him. Moreover, every time I click on to your reference to Johnseed blog, I get a website that is no longer active. Has the site been attacked by Turkish hackers?Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? His whole middle name is in the article. And I've tagged the dead link, and even though linkrot happens, it's still a viable reference (there may be a new url we aren't aware of, or an archive somewhere). I'm not sure what you mean by hackers, especially the racist bit about Turks.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would my comment be racist? Why do you make such silly and absurd accusations? Why do you insist on having a dead link for reference? Why is it when I do a google search for Arman T. Manookian, I don't get the list of Notable Marines to come up instead of Frazer Art? I think your tone indicates a foul disposition for the truth. Why is that? Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:Linkrot about why deleting a reference is not warranted, even with a dead link. And Wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with how Google operates or ranks pages in searches. If you have a problem with that, contact Google. And please read Civility.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of References to McClellan
I am willing to discuss with anyone who gives sound reasoning why McClellan should detract from Manookian's accomplishments. Please explain yourself as to why this article seems to be more about McClellan than Manookian. I patiently await a response. Otherwise, it will be edited shortly. Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one is willing to discuss on this page. It will be edited. Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You gave your fellow editors only 5 minutes to reply. Did you read the edit summary provided when your edits were last reverted? It says "Restoring McClellan references. They explain Manookian's travels as a Marine and give context to the "history of the Marine Corps", a phrase that's nonsensical without McClellan. Please don't change back."  It makes sense, does it not? Please revert yourself if you agree.  --CliffC (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. However, I propose a solution to this problem. Both McClellan and Manookian should be placed at the List of Historically Notable Marines. That way the viewer can cross-reference each. Comments regarding McClellan detract from Manookian's accomplishments. It is confusing to the reader whether the article is all about the benevolent McClellan or instead about Arman Manookian. If both are placed on the List of Historically Notable Marines, then each can have their contributions regarding the Marine History recognized. It appears to most readers that there is an attempt to leach off of Manookian's accomplishments for the benefit of the Marine Corps Historical department. That is not going to happen on my watch. Monte Melkonian (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said at (User) Monte Melkonian's Talk page, before I saw this entry:
 * Manookian was an clerk to McClellan. Manookian illustrated McClellan's book.  These are facts about Manookian's life and they're properly included in the article and in fact are necessary to supply proper context.  The facts are true and are woven into Manookian's life and I don't understand why you think that as such, they "detract" from Manookian.  So please leave it.  As for your suggestion to add Manookian to the other list - I don't see how making a problem on another page (an issue that was discussed ad nauseum here and here) fixes a problem on this one!


 * Now please stop making that edit. You can be blocked for edit warring.   JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation in order. Otherwise, it gives the appearance that you are trying to skirt the issue. I only say this for your benefit. Please read the detraction again for your benefit. Moreover, I am just a volunteer making editing contributions. Is there something wrong with that conduct? I didn't get your last discussion. It was unintelligible. Apparently we have a disagreement. And, I think the next best course of action should be to go to final arbitration. My edits will stand. And, I will note that you offered no constructive solutions. Indeed, your outright dismissive attitude is not helpful as well. Please refrain from such conduct. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please remove McClellan from this list. It is absolutely confusing. Moreover, this issue was already brought in the Editor Assitance request. There, the editors insisted that McClellan was merely saying nice things about Manookian. And that is all. They considered him just as a clerk and nothing more. SO PLEASE follow the suggestions of the other EDITORS on the topic of Arman Manookian and McClellan's relationship. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean about taking things out of order. I'm responding at the bottom of the section, following each person's remarks, in chronological order.  I am having trouble making sense of your concerns re McClellan - as I suspect other editors are - and if you make the edits again, you'll be in violation of the WP:3RR rule and subject to being blocked.
 * We're all just volunteers, Monte, and we're all trying to make the best possible Wikipedia. But it can't work if editors don't respect the rules and follow procedures.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reported the edit war here. I can't revert these changes without violating the 3RR rule myself so I'm going to take a bit of a break now. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I am requesting mediation. Would you prefer final arbitration? However, that may be premature since Arbitration cannot be about the content of the article. Monte Melkonian (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know where you report it and I'll comment if I think I need to add anything to what I've said here. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, the positon of Edwin McCellan's clerk gives perspective to Manookian's position in the Marines. Also, there is no reason to replace ...he was assigned as a clerk to the author and historian, Major Edwin North McClellan. with ...he was assigned as a clerk to an author and historian. Doing so makes his position as a clerk seem unnotable. McClellan's mention does not detract from Manookian in the paragraph, but rather puts his position in the Marines into perspective, as he was not the clerk to some random author and historian, but rather to the first director of the Historical Section of Headquarters Marine Corps, which carries a little more weight. It is for these reasons that I restored the edit. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please undo your edits. Moreover, visit the pending mediation requests so as to read about the issues prior to making edits or comments. The reason for these suggestions are that you may be commenting about something that has already been throughly discussed by other editors. Monte Melkonian (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you do not mind me formatting your response for ease of reading. I was not aware of the mediation request, but as the (albeit small) consensus is to keep his name, as well as this being what the given sources seem to reflect, I will wait until a more solid consensus is reached before reverting the edit, if that it the decision of the consensus. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the restoration of edits as completed by SudoGhost. Sounds logical to me to keep the reference to McClellan.  Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated before, please refrain from commenting or opining on matters you have not researched the matter fully. Please view the editing history of Arman Manookian from the List of Historically Notable Marines and note the error of your ways. Otherwise, your comments and opinions give the appearance of bias which truly diminishes the credibility of Wikpedia. Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is response to your edit summary (In compliance with Editor Assistance re Manookian's contributions to Marine Corps History) as well as your comment above: The exact statement from Editor assistance was "Speaking kindly of a recently deceased former subordinate (or anybody you knew) is very common and I think you put too much emphasis on it." which was made in response to your quoting McClellan: "As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it." concerning his inclusion as a historically notable Marine. That statement has nothing to do with McCellan being removed from this article, but was a response to your questioning why Manookian was not in the list in question.  I have researched this matter fully, and have been monitoring this article (and other related articles) for quite some time. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Manookian on list of historically notable Marines
The reason given for not including Manookian on the List of historically notable United States Marines is he is already listed on the List of notable United States Marines, which as the editor stated here is the more appropriate place to list him. If you think otherwise, then please discuss on the talk page of the list you think he should be on so that consensus on the issue can be achieved. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Request For Mediation In Removing Mclellan and The Marine Corps From Manookian's Page [Armenian Issues]
I have tried to informally resolve the editing issues on Arman Manookian to no avail. As a matter of fact, I requested mediation with no response. Moreover, a consensus of Assisting Editors informed me, when I tried to include Arman Manookian on the List of Historically Notable Marines, that Arman Manookian was merely a clerk and nothing more and did not warrant such inclusion and was not part of Marine Corps History. Based on that guidance, I deleted references to McClellan [a Marine Corps Historian] on Manookain's page. Now, I note, the very same editors who opined that Manookian did not warrant inclusion on the List of Historically Notable Marines, insist on including McClellan's name and the Marine Corps on Manookian's page for propaganda purposes. I have repeatedly pointed out that this type of inclusion detracts from Manookian's accomplishments independent of the United States Marine Corps History. It appears as though a double and convoluted standard applies and it is very offensive to Armenians. Moreover, 3 linked references to McClellan and the Marine Corps confuse the readers as to who really the article is about. Is it about Manookian or Mclellan or the United States Marine Corps? Although I am assuming Good Faith, several witnesses are absolutely dismayed at this type of conduct and it should be noted that it gives the appearance of Bias for a POV and propaganda. I don't believe Mediation is consistent with an Editing War. Moreover, as I stated before in assuming Good Faith, it appears as though Manookian's page is being collaborated to sell art and recruit for the Marine Corps. Yet when simple solutions are offered, such as including Manookian and McClellan on the List of Historically Notable Marines, it is ignored because his last name ends in IAN and the fact that he committed suicide as a self imposed martyr. Despite the fact that on the Editor Assistance page the question posed was not answered and then listed as answered, I followed the guidance of those editors who in essence stated that the reason Manookian was taken off the List of Historically Notable Marines was because he was a clerk and McClellan only said nice things about [his name and fame are intertwined with it [Marine Corps History]] him because he felt sorry that Manookian committed suicide and not because he had anything to do with him being the first Marine Corps historical artist/illustrator. I followed their guidance and hope you follow their guidance as well. This type of conduct cannot stand and it will be noted or publicized. Moreover, there seems to be a concerted effort by so-called volunteer editors who have a keen eye either on my edits or on Marine Corps History that have a problem with historically notable Marines whose last names end in IAN or who volunteered for suicide missions. Apparently, it has something to do with recruitment of Armenians for Martyrdom during WWII and the Marine Corps' subsequent treacherous conduct of ignoring those very same Armenian American Marines for political and financial reasons. At this point I ask that an administrator watch this page very carefully as it relates to an Armenian American Marine who cannot defend himself from scavengers. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of references to McClellan (redux)
There has been discussion in the paragraph above on whether to include a reference to McClellan on this page or not to include such a reference in the Manookian article. In order to achieve consensus on the issue, please indicate here as to whether you support or not support such a reference. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of McClellan on this page based on arguments presented in the above paragraph. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, per my discussion above. Indeed it's hard to write a sensible article without the references.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The McClellan information does not overwhelm the article as Monte Melkonian appears to be suggesting. The references to McClellan are important to understand the context of the sentences.  GB fan (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per the reasons I stated above in my first statement in the 'Inclusion of References to McClellan' section. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)