This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
In an attempt of character assassination, Ashot Arzumanyan added self-research ciritsizing the works of Charles van der Leeuw. This is related to the ongoing discussion on the Charles van der Leeuw books in the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre discussion page. The edits by Ashot is self-research and based on cherry picking. By that I mean selection of negative reviews and neglection of positive reviews. Based on this I undid the edits. For future reference when critisizing please have objective sources backing the allegations and not original-based-research Neftchi (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "self-research"? If some individuals have reviewed his works in prominent journals and have passed a negative judgment on them then that's probably worth inclusion. At most, one should evaluate the overall trend of the reviewers and quote both sides, perhaps giving slightly more weight to those who criticize him than those who agree with his positions. There's no hint of original research here but essentially something that is done on all articles on Wikipedia on individuals (historians, politicians, scientists, etc.) Whatever the case, your removal was uncalled for and your characterization of Ashot's edits wholly inaccurate.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The info was sourced and sources were in compliance with WP:RS. Probably I should, based on the RS we have, elaborate how he is criticized and why he should be approached with caution, but this is left for some other time. --Ashot(talk)04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
