Talk:Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery

pov
This battle does not even exist in Turkish sources. Is there a reliable foreign source except Armenian ones, about "this battle". Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, but why place a POV tag? I don't understand. Because the sources are "Armenian"? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be rewritten or some sentences should be removed. "Andranik Ozanian's intentions were to attract the attention of the foreign consuls at Mush to the plight of the Armenian peasants and to provide a glimmer of hope for the oppressed Armenians of the eastern provinces" What is this an Armenian blog post? Clear violation of WP:EDITORIAL. Thanks --Abbatai 10:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you believe that the grammar is not encyclopedic, then WP:FIXIT. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Article has several problems. No third party source for the claims as well.--Abbatai 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see several "third-party" sources. Ternon and Phillip Matar being some of them. I'm pretty sure you can add their work even more so in the article. But all in all, it does not mean there are absolutely no third-party sources that are being used or can be used. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Étienne Dolet's sources are to be considered third party as Abbatai has correctly stated himself. It's merely a biased blogpost, posted by an Armenian author, which others would not consider factual to this discussion. Zuormak (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Zuormak


 * How are Ternon, Trostky, and Phillip Matar NOT third party sources? Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is so. Provide a legitimate justification please. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok what about stating in the needed sections such sentences are Armenian claim? For example; the number of soldiers. And removing the sentences such as "he was ghost" it is Armenian heroic claims and there is no reliable source for it. Plus POV tag should stay untill we have a netural version of the article.--Abbatai 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What are you even talking about? We don't say that "Armenians claim" anything unless we actually have a source that says Armenian claim this. The "he was ghost" is a quote from a source. Why should it be removed? If you have a problem with the sources, take it to the WP:RSN. But don't just throw accusations around just because some sources have ethnic Armenian authors which is clearly what you're trying to do here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten large parts of the article, which included removing the lede sentence objected to by Abbatai. Some of the sourcing is still unclear (what is this "Military history: Vol. 12; 1995"?), as is the material on the strength of the Turkish forces (surely the infobox should be 1200 not 6000). Maybe claims regarding casualties and the size of the Turkish forces involved needs to be attributed to whatever named individual first gave those figures, since it will never be possible to know for certain if they are accurate. If these last things cam be done, I don't think the pov tag should remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Deeper facts please
More important to improve this article in balance: who appointed Antranik as "leader" and under what authority did they do this? In other words, how reliable is the information given, and more to the point, what is it's validity? Under what criteria are validity claims made here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validityreliability (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Second point. This statement: "By the second half of the 19th century, living conditions for the Armenian population in the Mush valley had become intolerable." needs proper contextualisation and reliable evidence for justification in order to be credible. OK, but why "Armenian population". Were living conditions "intolerable" for any other groups? If the categorisation here is official, then it should be stated and referred to as such, but I for one, don't see any evidence for official categorisations of the term "Kurdish" here, for example. "Armenian" seems to be used in the conventional nationalist sense of language and religious criteria, when even these are clearly complex. This is all too simplistic, and as a result comes over as propagandistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validityreliability (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)