Talk:Hemshin people/Archive 1

message: By putting the WPTR tag, i was not disputing that they were armenians, I know that. but I put the WPTR tag since it is a turkey related topic, feel free to add WP Russia and WP Georgia tags as well..:)) Kars is also in WP Armenia, we have to be inclusionist.. :) Baristarim 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now.  That's fine. -- Clevelander 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPTR tag

message: According to an Armenian researcher there are 100000 Hamshen in Turkey and not 400000. 
Here is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3459
It makes no sense to exagerate the number of Hamshen in Turkey. Orrin_73
:You need a reliable source. Nareklm 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it its a forum those don't count. Nareklm 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay man! anyone can change numbers on forums! when you get the link presenting the numbers than put it! Nareklm 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The number of Hamshen in Turkey

message: From my talk:
please protect hamshenis page, omer keeps adding original research, no citations and refuses to explain his mass edits, where there is not consensus.67.49.46.213 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the page should be protected just yet. Omer's edits do introduce substantial amounts of material that is either original research or POV and have removed substantial amounts of referenced material, but that alone is not enough of a reason to protect a page - these problems could be addressed in the talk page. Also, Omer has been making comments and suggestions, some useful, some not so useful, in the talk page for a long time, so he is not the type of editor who will just walk away and never return if the article were to be protected for a week or month or several months. So what's the point of protecting a page if as soon as it's unprotected the same problems arise?  Nor can we say that the version Omer wants to change is good enough to remain for a long period as the protected article. Meowy 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect?? 

message: Thought you all might find this interesting. I occasionally read English and Armenian language posts on the Hamshen Forum and was surprised to discover that there is now a Hamshen newspaper in Yerevan (Dzayn Hamshenakan or Voice of Hamshen). The monthly newspaper, in Armenian and Russian, is distributed for free both in Armenia and on the internet. I was browsing through one of their 2007 issues, and there was lots of interesting stuff, such as an article with pictures on an Armenian/Hamshen church that will soon be constructed in Gagra, an overview of a book on Hemshinli by Hovan Simonian, and information on the Hemshinli in Turkey. I could only read four pages though, as I do not read Russian. Hakob (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemshin (Hamshen) publication in Yerevan

message: The lead section is being changed through edits without prior agreement on talk page since some time. Although my preference is to reach an agreement on talk page first (for the lead section and all others) I have no other choice  but to follow that line as well.
Just now I have made such an edit.
For the sake of clarity I recall the recent developments as follows:
June 9: the then standing lead section, which was mainly worded by myself,  was edited with the declared purpose of  (An attempt to get a neutral lead). 
June 12: I inquired what was "unneutral" in the removed paragraph and put forward what in my view was not correct in the new edit.
From there on I was confronted with no arguments but insults. 
Several direct edits took place...In this course I have tried to carry as much as I can from texts entered by the counterparty. 
My edit  dated June 21 included also all the requested inline citations and references.
Also this one was, however, fundamentally changed (June 22) and whole sections I had proposed were removed with no clear 
explanations, using artificial and untrue excuses (like "this version is very similar to my earlier version"...) or vague complaints (concerning "wikipedia standard format"). This change reinserted also the POV statements about which I had explained
my concerns on June 12 and  did not address or even consider my comments  raised by then.
In response, I have again updated the lead section (June 25), taking the relevant parts from the recent edit and removing the POV statements. Unfourtunately, this was followed by an immediate revert.
As a renewed attempt to achieve agreement, I have now updated the most recent version, keeping the referenced material,
adding fully referenced information and have tried to achieve a wikipedia policies complient form.Omer182 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Lead Section