User talk:RaffiKojian/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

you couldn't be more right about that -- it's beyond absurd to omit that genocide. I get by in French too, so I'll see if the French article has a refrence to it or not. I bet it does.

Thanks - sometimes it amazes me... I understand it is not pleasant, but to ignore is almost to deny. --RK

From my user page: I gave up on trying to edit articles regarding Turkish history to remove the bias that is arising from the hostility towards Turkish people. I am writing this note as a protest. I removed them from my watchlist. In my opinion Wikipedia's history articles will always be biased and hence unreliable for me. My loss I guess. ato 02:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then why did you immediately remove the references to the Armenian Genocide? --RaffiKojian 03:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Because it makes it imbalanced as I have stated. Are you admitting that your edit was a result of "the bias that is arising from the hostility towards Turkish people", hence I should have ignored it since it is simple POV? BTW, Armenian Genocide article is no longer in my watchlist, along with some other articles. Turkey is in though, and I do want it to be balanced.
I would like to say two more things: 1. I'd prefer you added your notes to my talk page, I believe this is the tradition 2. Wikipedia is not a medium to "get the word out" it is an encyclopedia. Debated issues should be clearly marked as debated rather than stated as facts. at0 15:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

hello. i think that the genocide reference you make, should be in History of Turkey, not in a 3-paragraph summary. at that level of detail, it looks like propaganda.

i'm not a person who doesn't believe in the genocide. in fact the related wikipedia article helped me reconsider my opinions. but also as you may agree, it is not the same thing with Germany and Holocaust, both at the scale of the events, and the "neutrality" of the information we have about them.

regards. --Darius2 11:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Darius, a part of the reason I think the genocide looms so large, and deserves space in a 3 paragraph summary is because it is still a "big deal" and current event topic. There are laws being drafted in Turkey restricting freedom of speech on this issue even as they try to join the E.U. Major motion pictures like Ararat which cover the genocide cannot be shown in Turkey, sometimes due to the government, sometimes due to terrorist threats. So perhaps when there is an admission, and the topic fades out, the time will have come to relegate this solely to the history pages.
Meanwhile, no two genocides are alike, but the Armenian/Jewish ones have a great deal in common. The scale of both surpassed a million, both ended in the murder of over half the population and expulsion of the rest, both were done under cover of world war, both had nationalistic and religious overtones, while targetting a minority known for industriousness and wealth, and the similiarities go on. The "neutrality" of information has only been an issue because unlike post-war Germany, which was thoroughly defeated, Turkey, which had signed a treaty of Sevres which stipulated an independent Armenia who's borders were drawn by President Wilson of the USA instead had an internal revolution, changing all their treaties so as not to even mention Armenia ONCE, and then began a massive government campaign to rewrite history. Therein lies the difference. --RaffiKojian 14:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Raffi. The treaty of Sevres is invalid. I think you haven't read the relevant discussion. At the Ottoman government of the time, the Sultan alone did not have the authority to sign treaties. The parliament (mebusan meclisi) also had to ratify it. Sevres has not been ratified by the Ottoman parliament which had ceased to exist before the representatives of the Sultan signed the Sevres. Even if you don't think the Ottoman government was de-facto rendered invalid at that time because of the Turkish Parliament leaded by Ataturk, the Sevres is invalid just because it hadn't been ratified by the Ottoman parliament. ///Darius2

I know, Darius. They signed it at the peace treaty, but did not ratify it. Instead the treaty of Lausanne (Sp?) was drafted and then ratified. That is the one I was referring to when I said they changed it. I could have been clearer. Sorry... --RaffiKojian 14:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My main point was not that, but I corected it anyway. Please do not think that it was "Turkey" signing the treaty or having the Sultan. Turkey is not simply the succession of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was born as a revolt to the monarchy rule of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore relevant discussion may be "Ottoman History" or "Turkish History" but not "History of Turkey", as a republic. In the article it was't clear who you are attributing the genocide to. Therefore I simply said "Ottoman Empire carried out.." though I'd not agree with that oversimplified sentence. Anyway, if you fix it -please- don't use grammar to make the reader think you are attributing the republic to have done it. You may accuse the republic of denial, but not of any action, if happened. ///Darius2

I do not know what you mean by moderation but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has many steps and the first one is discussion on a talk page. Please reply my points, especially my first point on Talk:History of Turkey. If you refuse to discuss, I will need to ask for protection of the page. at0 03:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was composing my replies as you wrote this... --RaffiKojian 03:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have questions for me, please put them in my talk page. The 0 in my signature is a link to my talk page. I do not follow other people's talk pages in general, and would not fill them up with conversations with a third party. I have said everything I wanted to say about repearations on Jerzy's talk page. As I have stated before, state policy is too complicated and expressing my full line of thought would not be practical. As for Jerzy's contributions to our discussion; I would not consider his opinion to be a ruling. It is an opinion coming from a third party who I believe would be impartial and is interested enough in the topic of interest that he would spend time rather than giving a kneee jerk reaction. But even though I value his opinion, it is still an opinion. at0 07:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have reverted History of Turkey page more than three times in 24 hour period, which is against policy. I think it is time we go to mediation. I ask you to undo your last revert, and make a proposal on how to take this to mediation in my talk page. If you do not reply in a time frame comparable to your swiftness in your revertions, I will take this to mediation myself, but I'd prefer to do it together. at0 17:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of Turkey is now unprotected but I do not want to go into another revert war. Will you accept mediation? As an alternative you can start working on the draft to show that you have good faith, but unless you take an action I will no longer pursue a comprimise. at0 19:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can see my response on the mediation page. I just noticed the new message on the 17th - the one on the 12th must have been lost on me in the flurry of reversions which you seemed quite happy to participate in until the page was frozen. So for you to point out I broke the reversion rule is quite interesting. Why are you demanding I write the first draft on the genocide? Why not have a third party do it? Like Jerzy. --RaffiKojian 03:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Did you also notice that I asked for protection after you broke the three-reverts-in-24-hours rule? I posted that message on your page after your 4th revert. Please do not put words in my mouth: I was not happy at all in getting in a revert war, and I never demanded anything. Anybody can do it, this is a Wiki. However if you want a comprimise, you need to work towards it at least to show that you are acting in good faith. BTW, removing references from Turkey article is not a comprimise. Assume that I vandalize hundred pages and then agree to remove that vandalism from majority of them, would this be an acceptable comprimise? I think not. We need to come to a comprimise on History of Turkey article itself.
Two notes for future: 1) If you want to send me note, put it on my talk page, I happen to have your talk page on my watch list but purely by chance 2) You can put your user and talk pages on your own watch list, so if someone leaves a message, there is a greater chance that you will notice. at0 07:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since this page is on your watch list, I'll reply here for continuity (sorry). I did not notice it was you who asked for protection. You are much more familiar with this wiki, and probably have a much better internet connection. If you were not happy getting in a revert war, even after Jerzy had spoken, then I don't understand why you would not revise the text you kept switching to which was so inflamatory and which I had rebutted a couple of times, which you ignored. You essentially demanded I write, or else you will go back and revert again... am I wrong? Even though it was I who was waiting still for a response from you.
Assuming that the genocide is relevant to the History of Turkey page, it could be argued to be relevant on the more condensed history section in the Turkey article. It certainly would not be "vandalism" to put it there. I still consider this a compromise, and certainly a show of good faith.
In any case, if you want me to start the genocide bit, I will go ahead and do it. I will also keep an eye on the size of the section since you seem to feel very strongly that the amount of space something takes up on a page has a direct relevance to its importance in history, and you do not want this to seem as important as other events. I do believe that is also a compromise, and one which I don't even agree with your basis for. --RaffiKojian 15:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I explained already why I kept reverting: Because I see that as a comprimise. I am not expecting you to be happy about it, I know you have objections, but this is what comprimise is about. I am sorry, but I will stop trying to educate you on manners, this is not the place and I am not the person.
Raffi, you are not even trying to be NPoV, what do you expect me to do? The whole argument started from the relevance and relative importance of the subject in Turkish history andd how to include it in the pre-republic part of History of Turkey. You go and write two long paragraphs, making it look like it is more important than many other events that are ignored, admitting at the same time I will not be happy about it.
I did not want you to "start writing about genocide", again you are putting words in my mouth. I wanted you to contribute to write a balanced article, which you did not.
Your lack of experience is not an excuse for false accusations. If anything you should be more careful because of that. However, I do agree our conflict partially arises from our understanding of how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium to push your PoV. If you cannot understand your way of representing things is not the only correct way, then maybe you should reconsider participating in community efforts. I mean this in a good way, I am not trying to drive you away, you can build up experience by working on subjects that you are not emotional about and then come back to this topic. All your contributions so far are on a single topic. I understand your desire to present your point of view to the world but I do not think this is the medium. Maybe you can start your own site.
Since at this point I cannot see how we can come to a comprimise, I will cease my attempts and remove the reference to Armenian Genocide article completely from History of Turkey article. at0 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One sentence[edit]

Look Ato - it seems to me quite simple. What we really need to do is come to an agreement on ONE sentence, in the History of Turkey page. Jerzy thinks it should be in there and was genocide, so does Darius2 I think, and I would be willing to accept that too. So forget all the other drama, and let's figure out ONE sentence, and call it even. OK? --RaffiKojian 17:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hello. Please could you see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for an update on your mediation request. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Raffi,

You might like to review Wikipedia's policies on adding external links. In my opinion most of the links you've been adding to count as Wikipedia:Spam. -- Solipsist 08:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I find your opinion to be way off base. A link from the mint page to a page describing the medicinal use of the mint plant in Armenia is hardly "spam". The definition of Wiki spam encompasses 2 things - links to fake articles (which this is clearly not a case of) and bots adding loads of links (which this is clearly not a case of). So you'll have to refer to something more relevent to convince me these links were a bad thing, instead of beneficial... --RaffiKojian 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Granted it is not the most clear-cut case - its the first time I've come across linking to a 3rd party wiki - which is why I thought I would discuss it first, rather than just revert.
You have to consider where the benefit lies. As a rule of thumb, External Links should only be used for material Wikipedia can't get in any other way. Most of this material looks like it would be better written as part of Wikipedia, although it would then have to live up to NPOV and verifiability standards etc. Instead you are inserting multiple links to a commercial wiki which is published under a non-free license (presumably that is your intention, although you have a conflict in your copyright statements: the user edit pages still says all contributions are GFDL, which is at odds with your main copyright page).
The situation is rather like inserting multiple links to a blog site which is nearly always considered spam linking. The benefit looks less like adding information to Wikipedia, so much as boosting the number of links, and therefore ranking, of the 3rd party site. However, I would be happy to take it to the Village Pump for a wider opinion. -- Solipsist 19:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is copyright material, specifically an article on a specific aspect of the plant whose page the link resides on. So it is nothing like the 2 cases presented in the page you mentioned. It seems anyone reading about "Hawthorne" might very well be interested in it's folk medicinal uses in Armenia - whose value cannot realistically be "verified" here... it is just folk medicinal use. There is a value in these links for both the reader of the wikipedia article, and for the Armenipedia site, which would get new visitors. Not to be insulting, but I don't see a difference between this, and other links on any of the pages, so this all seems a bit meanspirited to me, but feel free to take it to the village pump, or anywhere else. If you are the same person who asked for permission to take anything off of Armeniapedia for use on Wikipedia, you should understand that I am a person, and individual, who is building Armeniapedia at my own cost. I am paying for those translations of medicinal uses for example, among other things. So if I would rather wikipedia links to my solid, interesting content rather than let it incorporate the whole thing, you have to understand some of the background. --RaffiKojian 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
are you the same person who asked for permission to take anything off of Armeniapedia?
No, I don't actually have much interest in Armeniapedia or its content. I'm more interested in the precedent of connecting to external wikis.
I have no problem with you running your own commercial wiki - there must be plenty of other people doing it and there are even several commercial forks of Wikipedia. My only question is whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to link to them, and whether this constitutes spam linking.
Not to be insulting, but I don't see a difference between this, and other links on any of the pages
I can think of several of differences; multiple links from various topics - we don't link to Encarta from every page which has a subject in common; creating a offsite page in order to link to it - its a bit like 'no autobiography', if someone else thought your site was important enough to link to it would be easier to justify. But there is also a subtle qualitative difference which is difficult to pin down. The content of a 3rd party wiki is more mutable than the average web site, and you could end up with situations where sub groups of users migrate to a linked wiki in order to push a particular POV or something (not that that seems to apply to Armeniapedia, as I say I'm more interested in the general principle).
In any case Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the place to discuss the general principle. -- Solipsist 08:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well no one else seems to care too much about linking to external Wikis. So I guess it is just me — in which case, carry on. -- Solipsist 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)