Talk:Vrezh

Wording issues
What kind of wording is this: "To torment Azerbaijan and..." Tuscumbia, you have been editing on Wikipedia long enough to avoid such melodramatic phrasing and to know that this does not in any read like a neutral POV sentence. Furthermore, do we have any reliable websites like the US State Department or the CIA or any organization that tracks terrorism to know if Vrezh is still active or it even actually existed. I would not be surprised if this is some imaginary group which Azerbaijan created since it's absurd to think that there were even Dashnaks operating in the middle of the Soviet Union before it had even shown the first signs of collapsing. I would add notability and reliability source tags, but then what's the point if it just going to be reverted?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to put quotation marks as the quote came from the book, but I did reword it. In either case, seeing your note above, I don't think you'd be satisfied with that either. We don't know if Vrezh is still active or not, but it did exist and it did bomb civilian targets. I'll tell you what though. I'll go ahead and remove the dash after "1989" not to imply it still exists but its existence in the past is indisputable. See the sources.
 * And no, it's not some "imaginary" group which Azerbaijan created. Your argument must derive from "Azerbaijan committed Khojaly Massacre itself" fable collection. I have neutral sources attesting to the existence of the organization, at the very least, in the past. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A remark which you quote requires quotation marks - otherwise it's just plain plagiarism. Your changes are still just window dressing to what is essentially information copied from Azerbaijani government websites. Again, the logic does not add up; the lack of reliable third party or scholarly sources does not inspire any confidence at all. Tags are still required but adding them seems pointless with the prospect of new reverts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, if you do not agree on the wording, offer your version on the talk page. Do note that I did not mention it was in fact a terrorist organization as the source describes it. Secondly, there is no Azerbaijani government website. All three sources are unrelated to Azerbaijani government or its websites. Not sure where exactly you get that from. Third, Wikipedia does not base its rules and regulations on your logic which "does not add up". Why would one tag an article with impartial sources, after all? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reinstated Crime, Organized Crime and Russia WikiProjects banners
I have reinstated the Crime, Organized Crime and Russia WikiProject banners that were removed in a previous edit, allegedly because they were redundant for a hoax. This comment indicates a misunderstanding about WikiProjects, which are for improving the quality of articles, not classifying them, (unlike categories). WikiProjects each have a "scope" for articles that are "of interest" to them. So it is possible for an article to fall within the scope of multiple projects, without there being any inconsistency. This means WikiProjects are generally not mutually exclusive so can not usually redundant. Consequently, this article is within the scope of each of the reinstated WikiProjects. If editors want to remove any WikiProject banners, please justify why this article is outside the scope of those WikiProjects concerned. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)