Talk:Monte Melkonian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monte Melkonian article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Comment

I split the "Armenia" section into a several smaller ones, as it was overly long and written as an almost single block of text. Augustgrahl

[edit] Contentious Statement

A discussion on the merits of including the line about Melkonian being denounced as a terrorist would probably be more productive than the current edit war. -- Augustgrahl 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear some users just to try polish Melkonian biography. He is well-known in Europe as a terrorist, and I put some referenced info. More you can find in books about the history of various terrorist groups. What we should discuss?--Dacy69 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone a terrorist is appropriate and coming from a book, add a real reference. Nareklm 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement could easily be rewritten to say that "so-and-so has labeled Melkonian a terrorist." We should not be labeling this person a terrorist but if someone or multiple someones have made public and notable accusations then we should probably mention it. --ElKevbo 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because the author of a book says "he was denouced a terrorist in Europe" that doesn't make hima a terrorist, just from one source. Nareklm and ElKevbo are right there should be another source not from an author of a book. ROOB323 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there needs to be another source if the statement is simply "So-and-so, author of ___, labeled Melkonian a terrorist" or something similar. There is a huge difference between labeling him a terrorist and reporting that someone else considers him a terrorist. I'm not even sure we could outright label someone a terrorist since the label is fundamentally subjective. --ElKevbo 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That Melkonian was a member of an organization that utilized terrorism is more or less a fact, however, the statement given in the source is extremely vague, and seems to be a use of [| weasel wording]. -- Augustgrahl 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Dacy you better respond you cry to other admins and users about me but you dont dare to reply, you are in the ruling of vandalism. Nareklm 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
REMAIN CIVIL. You and other users tries to bleach a well-known terrorist. He was a member of ASALA - terrorist organizations. He was imprisoned in France. Look at this [1] , [2] and in the internet a bunch of others (even if you disregard obviously Turkish and Azeri cites, still many others where Melkonian is called terrorist). It is not weasel word. It is fact. Finally - US Dept. of State Report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" [www.mipt.org/pdf/1986pogt.pdf]. I don't need any efforts to prove that he was a terrorist. We can substitute current reference with others.--Dacy69 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say he was denounced as an terrorist by Europe? NO WHERE, or no where reliable, also the second link is not reliable. Nareklm 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69, please read WP:WTA. Such labellings are not allowed in Wikipedia, even if they're sourced. --Mardavich 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a use of weasel words, because it brings up the question of who in Europe is denouncing him. Please read the section carefully. -- Augustgrahl 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

from WP:WTA The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. I have sources where he is called terrorist. And US Dept. State Report "Pattern of Global Terrorism" of 1986 mentioned him among listing of terrorist activities by Armenian organizations (page 29)--Dacy69 14:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement that he was "denounced" for being a terrorist implies that he was personally condemned for his actions. Simply being mentioned in a report on terrorism doesn't really fit the description. -- Augustgrahl 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If a person is listed among criminals, he is criminal. If a person's activity is listed among terrorist activity he is terrorist. Why we should play with words? Afterall, he is not mentioned in US State Dept. Report for charity activity. It was terrorism. And in Europe, and in US as well, he is known as a terrorist--Dacy69 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Was Monte Melkonian a terrorist? There are certainly notable viewpoints that say he was; I'm not going to argue against that. However, saying that he was "denounced" (this has a different connotation than labeled or defined) as one implies that somebody whose opinions are notable for the purposes of Wikipedia singled him out to criticize his actions. One can make the statement that somebody was a terrorist without actually having an opinion on their character. -- Augustgrahl 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We can rephrase a sentence - but 'denounce' - this is exactly word used on many websites about him. So, we can put 'define', 'listed', etc. But the fact is that he was a terrorist and involved in terrorist activity during certain part of his life, at least.--Dacy69 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think that Monte was a terrorist. He just struggled for the rehabilitation of the rights of the Armenians, he just wanted to defend his people, he just wanted to make the all-Armenian dream come true. (a STUDENT FROM Armenia, 16.02.07)

We don't report personal opinions, only what reliable sources say. Grandmaster 08:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global terrorism report

The 1986 report doesn't say he was a terrorist. It says that he was convicted of forgery and weapon possession charges.Vartanm 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In the report his activity was listed among terrorist one. Who he is then? let's not play with words. Besides I don't see a reason why we can reject Brogan and other websites where Melkonian is called 'terrorist'.

And now back - about mediation. Such disputes might be endless. I made a formal offer and wait for certain time. I don't afraid of it. I have every reason to believe that I can prove my case. You, of course, can reject mediation.--Dacy69 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Such disputes might be endless because of your continuation of vandalizing Armenian articles. It's obvious that you're trying to push your POV. Prove your case in the talk page. Vartanm 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I proved my edit. It is indeed a section of Monte's activity in NK should be deleted because it is not referenced at all. Be careful with wird vandalization. You and other users just want to clean up terrorists. I will file arbitration request and let other people judge.--Dacy69 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't prove anything. Like I said before your source doesn't say he's a terrorist.He was never convicted as terrorist. Vartanm 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASALA and Melkonian

Below is my posting from ArbCom page, which lists all relevant links to State Department quotes.

I just wanted to make something clear. User Artaxiad above said "Dacy keeps on want to add that he (Monte Melkonian) was a terrorist, why is this? -- The answer, Monte Melkonian was a member and one of the main leaders of ASALA - Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia, which was considered as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Below are some links in reference. So, Mr. Melkonian, eliminated by Azerbaijani Armed Forces in Karabakh, was a terrorist without any doubts.
* [U.S. State Department Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1997]
* [U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing October 8, 1997]
* [US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #190, Monday, December 23, 1991]
Thanks. Atabek 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Plushttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monte_Melkonian&action=edit&section=3 Editing Talk:Monte Melkonian (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • US Dept. State Report "Pattern of Global Terrorism" of 1986
  • Patrick Brogan. World Conflicts, Scarecrow Press, 1999, p.624. "in November 1985 French police arrested an American Armenian terrorist in paris Monte melkonian from Fresno, California. he had been hagopian's top assistant before splitting with ASALA to form his own group. By then Armenian terrorists were regular putting bombs in shops, offices, bus stations"

Other internet pages where Melkonian identified as terrorists

  • well-known publishing house in the description of the book about Melkonian [3]

a bunch of other websites--Dacy69 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek none of your sources mention his name. All 3 are about ASALA. None prove that Monte was a terrorist.

Dacy your source is publishers review of the book "My Brothers Road" which doesn't say that he was a terrorist. Stop editing this article without discussion.Vartanm 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ASALA has its own article. If readers want to know more about ASALA, they can read the ASALA article. Sources on ASALA on Monte Melkonian page are unnessesary. Vartanm 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My sources say that he was a terrorist (Brogan) and publisher say that he was denounced as a terrorist. US Report of 1986 listed his activity as terroristic (he was not mentioned there for babysitting, after all) I put that before but that wroding was also removed.

And you removed a tag in section NK without discussion.--Dacy69 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put request for third opinion before proceeding to arbitration since you have refused mediation [4]--Dacy69 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Where in that report does it say his activity was terroristic? I didn't refuse the mediation. I said lets discuss it in the talk page before you change anything in the article. Vartanm 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK -- US Department of State Report "Pattern of Global Terrorism", 1986: On page 29 which entitled "ARMENIAN TERRORISM" , the report says about the conviction of Monte Melkonian for forgery and weapons and explosives posession. Americans had a reason to list his activity under section 'Armenian terrorism'. It is not criminal report about France or elsewhere.
You just trying to play with words. When I list sources where he called directly 'terrorist' you say that the sources aren't reliable. When I point to report about terrorism you say the report does not call him a 'terrorist'. All sources are neutral, it is not Azeri, Turkish or let's say Jewish (which might be biased for ASALA-Arab links). It is US report, it is a book of renowned British scholar (who indeed in his chapter about 'Armenian terrorism' expresses sympathy about genocide issue).
As a matter of fact, neither of my edits put directly that he was 'terrorist'. My wording was the following:
  • was a member of the Armenian guerrilla organization ASALA, for which he was denounced as terrorist
  • was a member of the Armenian guerrilla organization ASALA, for which he was defined as a terrorist and listed in relevant American reports

--Dacy69 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing with words? "You just trying to play with words" Next paragraph "As a matter of fact, neither of my edits put directly that he was 'terrorist'" You're the one playing with words. For the 1000th time The report does not call him terrorist.It doesn't denounce or define him as a terrorist either. There are many other names in that report, Should we define everybody in that report as terrorist. Patrick Brogan is a book author. His opinion alone doesn't justify you defining him as a terrorist. Do you have a link to that text? I would like to take a look. Vartanm 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
From Azeri press "The mostly known Armenian terrorist Monte Melkonyan made lots of armed attacks against the Turkish diplomats. In these attacks lots of people were killed" [5] This news article has lots of unsourced and false azeri propoganda. Pure Azeri POV. Vartanm 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the purpose you put Azeri source? I never cited them. What you are playing indeed? I cited neutral sources. For Brogan - it is only in hard copy and it is not my resposibility to provide them. I cite, you can verify. I believe that his book is in many libraries. One I found even in general reference section along with encyclopedias. Brogan is not alone as I showed.

I am not playing with words. I just mentioned that I am not proposing to put "Melkonian was a terrorist" even I believe that he is. For Wikipedia I propose another wording, which I have also shown above.--Dacy69 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of your proposals portray him as terrorist. Which is Azeri POV. Vartanm 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only as I quoted neutral sources. But I will wait for third party opinion and then we can proceed to mediation. As I undertsand you don't mind. I will file a request and let you know.--Dacy69 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Before a third party opinion is given

They should take a look at this. [6] Dacy69 is one of the main users causing Armenian-Azeri edit waring. Adding controversial and biased information to Armenian related articles including this one. Vartanm 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is blatant accusation. It is is you and like-minded people who push Armenian shauvinistic POV. I requested several times assistance and offered mediation on this and other pages. None is done by Armenian editors. please read carefully whole arbitration statements. see for insults and threats of edit war from Armenian editors. Everything is there--Dacy69 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny "Armenian chauvinistic POV" talking about accusations and insults. I have read the arbitration statements. All I see is Azeri editors like yourself trying to push you agenda.Vartanm 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Sources'

* [U.S. State Department Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1997]
No mention of Monte Melkonian.
* [U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing October 8, 1997]
No mention of Monte Melkonian.
* [US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #190, Monday, December 23, 1991]
No mention of Monte Melkonian.
Patrick Brogan. World Conflicts, Scarecrow Press, 1999, p.624
Just because one book writer calls him terrorist. It doesn't make him one.
US Department of State Report "Pattern of Global Terrorism", 1986, p. 29
Nowhere in that report it says that he was a terrorist.

Vartanm 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

The matter about terrorism is that there are some intermediate states between "clearly terrorism" and "clearly not terrorism". It would be necessary to write the matter in a neutral way, and add a section on the perception of the ASALA state with respect to terrorism.--Uyet Ustranimii 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A member of terrorist organization, who commits the acts of violence either directly or indirectly, should be clearly spelled as such. The State Department established the fact that ASALA was a terrorist organization, and this is not denied by anyone on this talk page. Monte Melkonian was a member and leader of ASALA. On September 24, 1981, Melkonian directed the "Van Operation" with takeover of Turkish embassy in Paris and holding the people in it as hostages for several days. In 1983, ASALA organized a bombing attack at Orly airport in Paris on Turkish Airlines counter, killing 8 people and wounding 55. Since majority of victims were not Turkish, ASALA split into two warring factions, with Hagop Hagopian defending "collateral damage", while Melkonian insisting that the attacks should directed "strictly against Turkish targets". Do we need more evidence than that, to prove that Melkonian was leading ASALA's terrorist attacks? Atabek 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that the word on the street? or you have reliable sources that he was denounced as terrorist in Europe and US. Vartanm 10:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes we need reliale references. You just saying something does not make it true. I could say lot of things, but that doesn't mean it must be true. Everyone has their own opinions on everything, but you can't just come and force your ideas through. You have to prove it with facts. ROOB323 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Nagorno-Karabakh

That section does not cite its sources (which should be neutral) and information about the war in Nagorno-Karabakh is not in conformity with NPOV--Dacy69 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Which sources are POW Dacy69? Put an [citation needed] next to them so we can add references to those. Instead of tagging the whole section of Nagorno-Karabakh POW. ROOB323 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think you should better look at the section. It is taged with {{Fact}}. And I pationately wait for citation based on neutral sources in accordance with Wiki rules.--Dacy69 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite a long time passed since this section was tagged - no neutral sources was supplied to prove information. This section should be removed.--Dacy69 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template. Note that it is more helpful to tag individual sentences with the {{Fact}} template. If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing [citation needed] after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

  • If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{Fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
  • If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Do not be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.

All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged.

It was more than 2 months.--Dacy69 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

In April 1993 He gave an interview to a British journalist. In which he said "Azerbaijan has expansionist designs which go way beyond Artsakh and include the take over of Zangezour, the southern part of present day Armenia . So we know very well that if we don't resist here, the war will continue into what is known as Armenia right now". The video of said interview can be found at the bottom of this article. Youtube video #2 at 4 min mark. Vartanm 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good! you, who simply claim everywhere that this is Azeri POV on my and other's edit, just produced an example of strict POV. You need to get acquainted with Wiki rules, especially those related to NPOV, POV and OR. Here is no place for assumptions. Strict facts and referenced opinion. There is a bunch of opinions on both sides of border (Azerbaijan and Armenia) that opposite side is going to expand its territory up to the end of earth. In Wiki article we need to state facts and NPOV.

And it will be good if in section NK we get references to neutral sources. The whole section is just fiction, whch should be deleted.--Dacy69 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

stict POV? this is the talk page. You wanted a citation of what he said, so I produced it.[7] I haven't changed the article or added the source. Oh, and before your claim that Hetq.am is armenian POV. Your dear friend Adil doesn't think so. [8] May I remind you that this article was locked because of your revert war? Vartanm 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "The whole section is just fiction, which should be deleted". Deleted???? why deleted. Why not improved. This proves your negative view towards Armenian articles. You want to delete everything you don't like.Vartanm 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am here responsible for myself and not for Adil or someone else. You are welcome to improve the article with neutral sources like I btw provided. And maybe this article was locked because of your reverts.--Dacy69 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC) You are welcome to improve

The sources that you provided even if neutral, were irrelevant. Thats why they were removed. Vartanm 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only your POV. I believe they are perfectly relevant because they mention terrorist Melkonian.

As I suggested, we need third party involvement. No one cared to provide third party opinion even I've put a note on the relevant page. I haven't filed mediation request because this case now under consideration of arbitration committee. Let's see what their desicion will be.--Dacy69 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only source you had that called him terrorist was a book author, the others didn't say he was a terrorist. This argument here right now is pointless. Lets just wait till the arbitration is over. Vartanm 05:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else do you call a person who commits mass attacks against civilian people. I mean, if it's a "freedom fighter", he is definitely not one, as in pursuing his goal he was restricting the freedom of other, innocent, people to live. Actually, this person also quite well fits Turkophobia category, which will be added to the article now. Atabek 05:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely not a Turkophobe.

Turkophobia is the fear of the growing Muslim and Turkish communities in Europe. That category is being severely misused as I have seen your past contributions add it to articles such as ASALA and other affiliated Armenian guerrilla fighters. Melkonian never expressed any hatred or "fear" of Turks and actually was quite compassionate to Azerbaijanis during the war.Armenians who took part in those attacks were doing it less out of hatred for Turks and more for hatred against Turkish-sponsored denial of the Genocide.

Unless you have some direct proof showing Melkonian going off on a tirade about how much he hated Turks and wanted to kill every which one, that cat is going to be yanked. The same goes for all other articles that have been listed under this category.--MarshallBagramyan 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "denial" was invented in late 1990s, in 1970s the attacks were directed at random against Turkish targets. Indeed, one need not to go far but to read the book of Melkonian's own brother, to understand that he was driven by Turkophobia. Melkonian's claim and criticism of Hagopyan that attacks need be limited only at Turkish targets, means nothing other than Turkophobia. Again, I don't understand why this basic fact is being disputed? The very core of Armenian question is intolerance of Turkey and Turks, attempts to divide, carve territories from this country. What's wrong with just admitting the truth. There is nothing anti-Armenian in adding Turkophobia category in this article. Atabek 06:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not turn this into a "battle along national lines." Saying that the core of the Armenian question is intolerance against Turks and attempts to carve up Azerbaijan simply isn't appropriate, especially as there was a request for arbitration over such issues that resulted in punitive measures being taken against many members of the Armenia and Azerbaijan Wikiprojects. -- Augustgrahl 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no "battle along national lines" involved in claiming that the person who openly stated and killed civilian Turks or Azeris as a means of achieving his ideological objective is a Turkophobe. This is a fact, which isn't disputable. And it has absolutely nothing to do with ArbCom case or its injunctions. Atabek 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are interpreting Melkonian's book and his brother's intentions. His brother wanted to target Turkish officials who worked in concert with the Turkish government to deny the genocide. Peaceful resistance against the denial began in 1965, not the 1990s, and after lobbying and protests failed after some time, some Armenians took part in terrorist attacks to compel Turkey's government to accept what it had done. Some Armenians joined all for the money, while most did it out of frustration against the denial.

You have yet to offer any sources, thus justifying the exclusion of that ridiculous cat. --MarshallBagramyan 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"..."-phobe means the person intolerant towards certain "..." idea, nation, origin, country, which as you spelled above was the clear objective of Melkonian. He wanted to "target Turkish" (not Swedish, French, Japanese, etc.) "officials who worked in concert with the Turkish" (not Ottoman, English, French, Russian, etc.) --- so, he was a Turkophobe. In addition, the Armenian "Genocide" is claimed to be in 1915, during Ottoman Empire, which did not exist since 1920. Turkish republic and what's called "Turkey's government" was established with the start of Republic in 1923. Accepting or denying something clearly not committed by that government is the right of that person, government, but blaming someone for so called "denial", doing so on purely ethnic basis, and further convincing yourself that it did happen and any denier is worth getting murdered or attacked, is clearly phobic/intolerant if not criminal in nature. In addition, if the "genocide" was something that undeniably happened, it would not require decades of paid political campaigning, terrorist attacks or blackmail, but a single tribunal court case -- especially considering the level of Western support for Armenian question in Turkey. Atabek 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what it all boils down to is that the ASALA was seeking political change as its foremost goal. While hatred of the Turkish people possibly motivated members to commit acts of murder, the organization was mainly trying to force the government of Turkey to do something that it wouldn't do without violent coercion. It seems to me like original research when trying to determine if Melkonian's motivations were more racially or politically motivated. -- Augustgrahl 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Turkophobia as defined is directed not only against Turkish people, but also against Turkish culture, Republic of Turkey and many times simply Turkic states. Again, you can claim that the objective of Melkonian was to force Turkey to do something (which he and his comrades failed at), but killing a representatives of a single ethnicity with objective of forcing the country of that ethnicity to accept certain claim is phobic against that ethnicity and that country. Nothing surprising or demeaning here. Atabek 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The Turkish diplomats were not targeted because of their ethnicity but the government under which they served. Targeting members of a government and members of an ethnic group are different things. Really, this was a case of Turkish-government-ophobia. -- Augustgrahl 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I provided you above with definition of Turkophobia, which says it includes hatred against the Republic of Turkey. Turkish government is appointed by Turkish people govern the state of Turkey, so the object of phobia is the same. Atabek 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok....that's still your own interpretation filled with conjecture and with no clear proof. Melkonian never expressed a hatred against Turks and in fact sympathized with the Turkish leftist-Marxist movement of the 1970s and his notable treatment of Azerbaijanis during the conflict.--MarshallBagramyan 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable treatment of Azerbaijanis? You mean like this? Hitler massacred 6 million Jews, and loved a Jewish girl in his youth. Sure... he wasn't anti-Semitic :) I just wonder how far can the limit of imagination, about calling the member of a terrorist organization killing civilians as a "freedom fighter" , be pushed. Atabek 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Melkonian was nowhere near Khojaly and for your information, he condemned the fact that Armenian soldiers fired upon them while they were fleeing through the pass. And please rein in your sockpuppets.--MarshallBagramyan 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bagramyan, were you present with Melkonian in Karabakh to know where he was? Or is this another one of those self-convincing claims? And before accusing me of sockpuppets, helplessly so, please, watch your own editing behavior with regards to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Atabek 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::sigh:: In his biography, there is an entire chapter called "No Discipline", a phrase Melknonian uses when describing the actions of some of the men after the battle. The pseudo claim of Turkophobia is still going to be left out; as of yet, you have offered nothing but your personal interpretations. --MarshallBagramyan 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On most recent deletions

Before anybody flips out and goes for the "History" tab, I want to say that I removed much of the content on the article not because there was anything particularly wrong with it (it did however have some POV problems and prose errors) but that the organization of it was messy and it's much better to work on these articles from the ground up (i.e., from Melkonian's early life to his war years and finally, death). The article was also missing many sources so I also hope to fix this by using a combination of sources primarily drawn from Markar Melkonian's biography of his brother but also news articles and journals.

I will hope that the article will soon reach FA status similar to the Ivan Bagramyan page so I'm very open to suggestions and critiques. Much thanks and with regards, --Marshal Bagramyan 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

--Irukan 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I think it will be much better to prepare fixed version of the article and then to replace existing variant by it, when it will be ready (It can take a lot of time). Meanwhile it will be better to leave the article in it's last edition. It will be also good stimul to prepare fixed variant ASAP. Sorry.

Hey Marshal, you can't just delete whole sections of an article like that without discussion! There is months of work in that article and if you feel you need to delete a section, you must first discuss it. Reverting. Serouj 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the IP's addition of the Words to Avoid. VartanM (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)