Talk:Armenian hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] "undue weight"??
If anything is "undue" here, it is to mention Kavoukjian at all. The discussion of the role of the hypothesis in propaganda is perfectly valid and well sourced. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is not. It is pov. Calling Kavoukjian a nationalist (which may be true) is also pov. This is your original research Db. You connecting that statement to Kavoukjian is your original research. Thus per your suggestion we will remove it altogether.--Eupator 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I don't mind the current version. Although how could Diakonoff in 84 reject Kavoukjian's thesis of 87? Diakonoff can manipulate the space/time continuum?--Eupator 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- sigh, that's why the article has "English 1987". I was unable to find the date of original publication. Kavoukjian is also just an example of what I assume are several authors. I am also only quoting a source referring to Diakonoff's refutation, that's it. If you have another source that says something different, feel free to quote it also. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I don't mind the current version. Although how could Diakonoff in 84 reject Kavoukjian's thesis of 87? Diakonoff can manipulate the space/time continuum?--Eupator 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dab, even if use of the hypo for propaganda is relevant, the way it's worded in the text is POV. "firmly rejected by Diakonoff" says "Dyakonoff was right, those Armenian nationalists were wrong"--i.e. it takes position, which we dont' do on Wiki. "Embraced by Patriotism" is too vague, and therefore too vulnerable to POV (like any other Weasel Word)--who are these "patriots?" Is there a procedure to label some as "patriots?" Who is the authority to make that decision? Are there non-patriot Armenians, and if so, what do they think? It's best to stick to specificity.--TigranTheGreat 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

