Talk:Mordechai Navi Synagogue

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Armenia Low‑importance

	Mordechai Navi Synagogue is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ASALA being involved in the synagogue attack

I couldn't find any independent source that linked ASALA to the attack, nor has ASALA itself claimed responsibility for the attack on any public forum. The only cited sources in the last paragraph refer to Azerbaijani sources, which are obviously biased against Armenia; given the ongoing conflict between the two nations, it is natural to assume that Azerbaijani sources would be inclined to portray Armenia in a negative light. 37.186.124.236 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's reason to believe the source itself is inherently unreliable, we don't disregard it simply because of its nationality. — Czello ^(music) 12:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about nationality. The sources (Azerbaijani or otherwise) can link to a statement that ASALA has made on a public forum if they want to confirm ASALA's involvement, or at the very least cite any investigative authority that suspects ASALA's involvement. The sources cited in the article have not done that, they have only quoted Azerbaijani sources which themselves lack any sources. 37.186.124.236 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They both state that the ASALA claimed responsibility for the attack on their Telegram channel. It seems pretty straight-forward to me. — Czello ^(music) 12:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the articles references YFFA's Telegram channel, not ASALA's. The channel itself is not linked. I am not sure that such a group (YFFA) exists or if it has any prominence; I could not find any reference to it online.

Regarding ASALA - ASALA has been dissolved and has not conducted any attack since 1997, and there is no reason to believe it would conduct a synagogue attack 25 years after its dissolution unless there is explicit evidence linking it to the attack. Anything else is conjecture, or a coordinated attempt to discredit Armenia by claiming that terrorist groups conduct anti-semitic activity in its territory. The second article even states that "however, Israeli media outlets identified a different group — Young Fighters for the Freedom of Armenia (YFFA) — as responsible for the synagogue arson". 37.186.124.236 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says The first one took place on October 3rd, and in both cases the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) group claimed responsibility for the attack on its Telegram channel in Armenian and English. The article you linked also says that several media outlets have named ASALA.

There doesn't appear to be any justification for removal, but it could be worth adding that Israeli media is naming a different group. — Czello ^(music) 13:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep the source just says that without linking the said Telegram channel or substantiating the claim in any way. Again, ASALA has not been active in 25 years, and there is no reason to believe it would conduct an attack unless there is explicit evidence linking the group to the attack.

I believe the reference to ASALA should be removed, or we should link their Telegram channel, or a source linking the Telegram channel or any claim by ASALA that can be considered as official. Note that more reputable sources like Times of Israel do not mention ASALA, nor do they cite Azerbaijani sources as proof (on the contrary, this articles emphasizes that the news of the attack spread primarily through Azerbaijani sources and notes the Armenia-Azerbaijan tensions). 37.186.124.236 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obligated to link to the channel. As long as we consider the source reliable (and there hasn't been a demonstration it's not) then we put a certain amount of trust in their reporting. — Czello ^(music) 13:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obligated to link to the channel as long as the channel actually exists and can be easily found. In this case it's not clear that such a channel exists - I could not find it. If it doesn't exist and yet the article quotes it, that makes the article fake news. 37.186.124.236 (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:OR. Ultimately the question comes down to whether the sources are considered reliable; given that we have several that are saying ASALA claimed responsibility, it's difficult to argue they're all "fake news". In fact, that's such a strong accusation that it's going to have to have more significant evidence beyond the fact that they didn't link to the Telegram post. — Czello ^(music) 13:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the several sources are either Azerbaijani sources or sources quoting Azerbaijani sources. Media outlets can engage in state-sponsored targeted campaigns that aim to discredit another state, it's not unprecedented in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Given the absence of links to actual ASALA-made statements and the fact that such statements cannot be easily found, I'd say it's fair to question the objectiveness of these articles. A paragraph about a synagogue attack in Armenia should certainly not be based solely on unsubstantiated claims from media controlled by members of its enemy state. 37.186.124.236 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't assume a source is unreliable just because it's from a particular nation. Perhaps they are unreliable, but we'd need more proof than an assumption. I suggest you make a case at WP:RSN and get a consensus there from people who will be able to analyse the sources closer. — Czello ^(music) 14:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually made the argument several times in this discussion why the sources are unreliable, and it wasn't just an "assumption" based on the fact that they were from a "particular nation" - the sources are unreliable because they claim the synagogue was attacked by a terrorist group that has been inactive for 25 years based on a "statement" by the said group that either does not exist, or cannot be found. But anyways, will make the case there if you're not willing to change your opinion. 37.186.124.236 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have this https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-773485 Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very similar to the Algemeiner source - "The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) claimed responsibility for attacking the synagogue, according to Azerbaijani media", followed by the Azerbaijani ambassador's tweet. No evidence provided. There are dozens of Israeli articles like this which are basically repeating the Azerbaijani claim with no additional context. Unotheo (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Algemeiner article says Azerbaijani media and other sources reported and the i24 article doesn't say anything about Azerbaijani origins of the claim.

I think that we should never use Azerbaijani sources for events in Armenia due the the horrible freedom of speech situation in the former, and the long-standing rivalry between the two, but in this case it's not just Azerbaijani sources that make this claim. I've added a note of attribution to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Alaexis for the edit! This is better but I still think that including the claim that ASALA was involved based on Azerbaijani and "other sources" is wrong. The so-called "other sources" are not specified, which would be fine otherwise but is kinda suspicious in this case. If you Google "ASALA synagogue", the entirety of the first page is Azerbaijani news sites and Israeli news sites referencing Azerbaijani news sites, none of them pointing to any ASALA statement.

One more thing to consider - if the article was about the synagogue attack, then the Azerbaijani perspective could have made some sense at least. This is just an article about the synagogue, so just mentioning the attack should be sufficient in my opinion, especially since the information about the perpetrators is both unconfirmed and of little significance given the scope of the article. Unotheo (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not second guess sources if they say X WE have to assume they had a good reason for saying X. So as long as we say "according to the Azerbaijani ambassador's tweet" we can mention this./ Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"if they say X WE have to assume they had a good reason for saying X" why would we assume that? Azerbaijan is an authoritarian country that is openly hostile towards Armenia, so I would not assume they have a good reason for saying anything about a country they are waging war against.

Note that the two countries have been at war since at least 1991, so it's not like Azerbaijanis have any ability to independently cover news events happening in the center of Armenia's capital. So anything their sources state must be based on evidence coming from either Armenian authorities or other international investigative authorities. Neither of those happened in this case. Unotheo (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]