Jump to content

Talk:Vahakn Dadrian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.237.123.52 (talk) at 05:13, 11 November 2022 (→Blanking sexual harrasment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Nationality

What is his nationality and where does he live? Badagnani (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian, I don't know about his residence. VartanM (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted POV edits per WP:BLP hate sites are not reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Turkey, I think. Meowy 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

I firmly believe that this is[1] a reliable source, reported by AP and it needs to be added into the article about the Dadrian. If there another reliable source denying that this has happened, then that source too can be added in addition to the AP source. --Aynabend (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each single book by that man has generated several reportings in several different newspapers. Those informations are nowhere in the article, which gives a rather a general overview of him. If you believe that adding 35% of the article on that info, than I know what to think of your understanding of WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. A more relevent question to ask, is that Elsanturk, you and Baku87 finding out of this article after my removal of the information, when the changes were made by apparently a new editor. Did you have that article in your watchlist? I mean, several of you (including yourself) had no edit for a considerable period of time before my revert. I have no goal neither interest in editing, I just came in March and April, knowing the usual character assassinations of genocide scholars and editing of genocide articles by revisionists in approching April 24. It helps knowing each April who bring outside conflicts here. Thanks again. Lets make a deal, show your good faith and expend the article in a way that this 35% becomes less than 5% to represent the man, than you'll have your justification to add it, if you really show any interest in the man rather than this character assassination.
I am interested particularly in polsci and related academia, I've created such pages like Dmitri Furman, Dianne Pinderhughes, Sara Ashurbeyli and Ronald Grigor Suny (q.v.), sometimes I cross the fields to engage with Lotfi Asker Zadeh, or create Vasili Razumovsky. Prof. Dadrian also is from academia. Ateshi-Baghavan 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my concerns at all. Chippolino who apparently had never had any contact with you made the change on April 14, I discovered it over a week later and reverted under two Wiki-rules. As you see no Armenian editor followed me and no one knew of my existance. But the same day you reverted my edit. There are hundreds of scholars on Wikipedia and you had never edited this article prior to my revert. Then Chippolina continued to revert followed by Baku87 who also never edited this article, Aynabend came and left a comment in the talkpage, he too never edited this article prior, the name had never written anything involving Azerbaijan to generate any Azeri interest. Those chracter assassinations of genocide scholars always misteriously appear at April of each year.

Onlyoneanswer, good faith should come not only when the object of argument is an Armenia-related article, but also articles related to Azerbaijani issues. In the case of latter we see brutal attacks and personality assasination all the time. So it would be fair if you (in general) showed that good faith the rest of post or pre-April 24 and then if we (again in general) do not return the same, then you have a right to complain. For example view this article and see how it is handled Igrar_Aliyev . Compared to pure POV in the latter, this particular source we are discussing here is the world-known source. Yes, I have viewed this article several times and the argumenst around it, but have never been involved personally. Also, please put your signature at the end of your posts for clairty. Best, --Aynabend (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I bother about other articles? Dadrian is much more notable than Igar Alyiev the scholar, and Alyiev had recieved no positive review outside Azerbaijan. Each criticism becomes much more notable given that ciriticism of him outweight clearly the positive reviews. In Dadrian case, you supported an information which was never included in any description of him, beside two newspapers. That's because he never became famous for that, no one ever heard of it. Each of his articles and other works (which he has few dozens) singularly have become more notable than this incident, I don't see of any in the article. Bill Clinton article dedicate less space per the articles size for Lewinski Scandall regardless of the fact that that's what we heard about Clinton for several months. Also the information added in Dadrian's case is presented in such a way that people will conclude more than what he was accused. (chick and lips corner kissing, and this was attributed to 'cultural differences' at least by those who defended him)

Article at Albany Times

If anyone doubts the existence of this article, we can ask the community to verify its existence. Asking for quotation of the full article is not correct. In fact, anyone can sign up for a Highbeam account now and check for himself. Here's the link to the article: [2] Grandmaster 12:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:BLP so please find a citation proving the text you're adding, otherwise the unsourced part must be deleted. Sorry, but noone had to pay money to check your "source" with obvious BLP violations. Gazifikator (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at WP:BLPN, and I disagree with you. Your comment about payment is incorrect. See WP:PAYWALL. I have looked at the cited source, and the material fairly represents what's in the cited source (read my comment at BLPN for more details).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ten Commandments"

They are mentioned twice in the article, w/o sufficient explanation what they are in this context.--Severino (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vahakn Dadrian. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article by Dadrian

http://genhist.asj-oa.am/86/1/3-19.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking sexual harrasment.

“academic sexual misconduct database” is not a reliable source and even uses a blog denying the Armenian genocide as a source, and the Times Union source makes no mention of charges being filed and admits it may have just been cultural differences confusion. Therefore, it’s WP:LIBEL.

This is notice that you need consensus for your changes especially for WP:LIBEL as Wikipedia takes libel seriously. Discuss in case of disagreements. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*"Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg found that Dadrian had harassed a female student on April 24, 1990, the day the professor returned to the school"

  • "In making her decision, Wittenberg noted that another arbitrator had found Dadrian guilty of four charges of sexual harassment in 1981"
  • "After the 1981 hearing, about 600 people, including 100 faculty, signed petitions asking SUNY administrators to investigate the case further to "protect our students from further harassment by Professor Dadrian in the months and years to come."

Source clearly states to convicted sexual harrasment unlike your "Times Union source makes no mention of charges" idea. No, Times Union accept these charges, they just say "some students voiced in 1981 case". So clearly not libel. Crasyy (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou[reply]

You are a sockpuppet who shouldn't be here. And you can reach that paywalled article from this link https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/search/?query=Dadrian&ymd=1955-01-06 176.237.123.52 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC) @Discospinster:[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vahakn_Dadrian&oldid=1121223775"