Talk:Vrezh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:35, 3 October 2011 editTuscumbia (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled5,626 edits →Wording issues: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:55, 3 October 2011 edit undoMarshallBagramyan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,778 edits →Wording issues Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: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.		: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 ] itself" fable collection. I have neutral sources attesting to the existence of the organization, at the very least, in the past. ] (]) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)		:And no, it's not some "imaginary" group which Azerbaijan created. Your argument must derive from "Azerbaijan committed ] itself" fable collection. I have neutral sources attesting to the existence of the organization, at the very least, in the past. ] (]) 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 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.--] (]) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, 3 October 2011

Azerbaijan Start‑class High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Wording issues

What kind of wording is this: "To torment Azerbaijan and..." Tuscumbia, you have been editing on Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Categories: