Talk:Hayazn

Not a political party
Feel free to prove me wrong. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove what wrong? Protesting against leasing Iranian pastures land is not "Anti Iranian". It was against Armenian government's decision, not Iran's. Same for Russia/Customs Union. -- Ե րևանցի talk  22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that Hayazn is a political party? --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it. Please take a look. -- Ե րևանցի talk  22:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are using an infobox for a political parties, when in fact it's not. Your lead is biased and uses vague words. Hayazn has been voicing it's opposition against the Customs Union, which you deleted. Hayazn couldn't possibly take part in the parliamentary elections, because it's not a party. You deleted mention of the altercation between them and the Pre-Parliament. You deleted the part about their counter march against the Diversity march and added irrelevant categories and templates, which do not fit into this article. So no, you did not already fixed it. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

-- Ե րևանցի talk  00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is de facto a political party. So what it isn't registered? I can list dozens of registered parties in Armenia that don't exist in reality. What infobox should we use? It is a political organization after all.
 * "Your lead is biased and uses vague words" Hmm. Before accusing me in bias, please review your own edits. It also wouldn't hurt if you were more specific.
 * "Hayazn has been voicing it's opposition against the Customs Union, which you deleted." Please read the "Ideology" section more carefully. Their opposition is clearly mentioned there.
 * "You deleted the part about their counter march against the Diversity march" You are free to add about the march. I simply reverted the inappropriate wording.
 * , Check, , You have made no argument or provided any sources claiming otherwise. Will you stop edit warring?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 10:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have provided the official record of the Armenian state registry, which shows that Hayazn is not a party. Hayazn itself claims to be a party and Armenian journalism is in such a sad state that no one bothers to check publicly available sources to verify said claim. I'm certain official stat records outweigh self claims and lazy journalism. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any sources?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article. official state record lists Hayazn as a ՀԿ as in Civil Organization. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, and it is an insufficient source.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain why. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like nothing has been written.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you expect it to be written? It says it's registered as a Civil Organization (CO), the number of the registration and gives the list of the founders. Same as for every other entity. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again. The opening paragraph clearly states that it is an organization and that it has not yet been registered yet. You don't need to make it the main point of this article. -- Ե րևանցի talk  15:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure why something has to be "registered" as a party before it can be called a political party. What a specific country's rules are on what has to be done to participate in something is irrelevant: for now we're talking about a definition. From what I gather the party organizes protests and seeks to influence things, and its registration, pending or not, is a clear indication that they aim to participate in the political process. This edit is a clear indication, with its tendentious "state records don't show", that the editor's intent is to downplay the organization's importance, especially since it's given such an important position in the lead. In other words, as says above, "You don't need to make it the main point of this article". This is POV editing, and it won't stand. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, exactly my point. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear @Drmies, as I understand wikipedia reports on facts from neutral point of view. The facts are Hayazn claims to be a party, but isn't registered as one according to state3 records. I don't know how more neutral you can go, then saying, "they claim X, but records show Y". I have no problem removing that information from the lead, if the lead is not going to name them a party. I built upon this article and added information as I went along and didn't move stuff around that much. Yerevantsi, on the other hand assumed ownership of this article and keeps reverting sourced information. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If they claim to be a party, they're a party. They may not be a registered party, but that's a different matter, as far as I'm concerned. The point made earlier about the lead stands: your version of the lead overplayed their supposed non-partyness, as if that was just about the only thing that matters. But that's really a minor matter: if you don't see how your version was not appropriate for the lead, maybe a reading of WP:LEAD will help. Messing with that infobox means nothing of any importance; all it gets you is a reputation as a POV and edit warrior. More important, it seems to me, is the actual content of the article. I do not see where argues against the inclusion of that information. So let me give you some advice: add content to the article in chunks, maybe one edits per section, not wholesale, which just invites reverts. Explain in edit summaries what's going on. Explain on the talk page, if need be, how the content is well-verified and why it is relevant to add--keep it neutral. If you edit that way, then your opponents will have to present arguments of their own and can't just hit "undo". Drmies (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. "If they claim to be a party, they're a party" Can you show me an example of this on Wikipedia? It seems odd to me, that a group of people can claim they're a party and have a Wikipedia article about them. Not that I'm questioning Hayazn's worthiness about having an article. Yerevantsi, repeatedly removed any and all of information about Hayazn's violent actions, even when I added them in chunks, and explained each one here and the edit summary. I understand that you might be busy, but please take your time and look at the history of the article. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
As suggested by @Drmies, I read WP:LEAD. Here is what I gathered. It says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Here is my recommendation for the lead. Strike through, what I propose to delete and italics what to add.


 * [Hayazn (Armenian: Հայազն) is an Armenian nationalist organization founded as a civil organization in 2009, and declared itself a political party in 2013 (it has not been officially registered yet ) It has been politically active since 2011. Hayazn is an opposition group and has protested against numerous government actions. initiated campaigns for various goals with mixed results. . Hayazn has been in conflict with the LGBT rights activists and the Pre-Parliament.

--Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting "yet" because none one can guarantee that they will get registered. There are very specific requirements that they don't meet.
 * I'm adding the fact that they're in the opposition. I'm deleting the word "numerous" because it's vague (how many is numerous?).
 * I'm also deleting this "initiated campaigns for various goals with mixed results.", because it looks like it was lifted from someones CV/Resume.
 * As pr WP:LEAD I'm adding their prominent controversies.


 * is waiting 5 days for an answer long enough time to show you that Yerevanci is not interested in discussing changes and he just wanted my added information gone? Should I re-add the removed information, or is it again going to be removed and I'm reported? --Armen Mah 21:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Since no one protested my suggestion, I'm assuming a consensus. --Armen Mah (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
I don't see how using the wrong infobox that contains less information is justified. --Armen Mah (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hayazn. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140617045308/http://www.emedia.am/?p=30259/nor+azgaynakan+kusakcutyan+mutgy+hayastani+gaxagakan+dasht+hayazn+fotosharg to http://www.emedia.am/?p=30259%2Fnor+azgaynakan+kusakcutyan+mutgy+hayastani+gaxagakan+dasht+hayazn+fotosharg
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130114174324/http://www.hraparak.am/68781/ to http://www.hraparak.am/68781/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)