Talk:Republican Party of Armenia

Conservative

The Republiacan Armenians are a conservative not liberal. They are nationalist and cristian party.

Opinion sentense

What do you think about this sentense:

"Political wise the strongest party in the country are the republicans."

I think it gives authors opinion about the party and should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On "Tseghakron" being a fascist ideology

I maintain that the "Tseghakron" ideology, which is the Republican Party of Armenia's official ideology, is the Armenian form of fascism developed by Garegin Njdeh in the 1930s, corresponding to the rise in fascism in other parts of the world, including Germany, Italy, and Spain. A simple skim through the works of Njdeh is enough to substantiate this.Serouj (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your personal points of view. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not my personal point of view. I'll include a source as soon as I find one (there are very few to non academic papers that have written about "Tseghakron" since it had such a marginal following). It's interesting, though, that you're getting personal instead of replying to the issue at hand.Serouj (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

HHK's slogan

HHK's slogan "Let's rely on our minds and our arms." was used during 2003 parliamentary elections. In 2007 parliamentary elections the slogan was changed to "For you, Armenia." -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Why not keep them both in the article? Serouj (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

HHK ideology

The official HHK ideology is "tseghakron" according to Eurasianet's page on the political party. Also, on the HHK's Library page, Njteh is the single most cited author and appears as the first entry. So there is no doubts as to HHK's ideology being developed around Njdeh's tseghakron.Serouj (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source directly from the HHK's website that confirms this:

The supreme purpose of the Armenian Nation that approves its existence created by God, is the everlasting existence in the fatherland, assertion of its vital force, creative genius and free will. The main guarantee for the achievement of this purpose is the Armenian national ideology in which, according to the RPA's convictions, the theory of Garegin Nzhdeh has it's substantial place. The national Armenian ideology is built on the basis of combination of Armenian value system and historical-cultural experience in conjunction with the national values and the ones common to all mankinds. It must streighten the credence of Armenian people in their own power and in the future. And it must be permanently developed as an ideological system.

PROVISIONS OF RPA PROGRAM, Republican Party of Armenia.

Serouj (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The above quote states that the theory of Garegin Nzhdeh has a substantial place in their ideology. However the first sentence of the reference that you quoted above is "The RPA is a national conservative party." In conclusion, RPA's ideology is "National conservative" and Geregin Nzhdeh's theory has a substantial role in it. Since that would be a very long sentence for the infobox. I suggest that you put the information about Garegin Nzhdeh and his theory of tseghakron, in the main text. Infobox area is reserved for a short description from a List of political ideologies. -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion.Serouj (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On Eurasia.net, Populus and party popularity.

a. Eurasianet is hardly a reliable source on Armenia, since they do not even provide any base for their statements. b. British Populus polling center has been accused by many in biased approach in all parts of the world, including England. c. This section of the article is very one-sided, since it does not provide references to many other polls that had completely different results. d. This is simply a copy-paste from Eurasianet website, which introduces personal subjective perspective of the author of the article, rather than a solid source that should be represented in a cyclopedia.

Suggestions:

Either remove this section all together or add other sources that show other side of the issue. Personal opinions based on articles from eurasianet should not be presented as factual matters; this is misleading. Nzurabyan (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Eurasianet has consistently provided accurate articles throughout the election campaign in Armenia. Your opinion on British Populus won't stop from their survey being listed here. (BTW, their "31 percent" of voters supporting HHk is on the HIGH side, so I don't know why you are complaining!)

If you have better sources, then why not help Wikipedia out by doing some work instead of making suggestions to others?Serouj (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think so. " - Well, this is not a matter of what you think, but rather what the facts are and what concrete evidence you can bring to support it. This is a matter of presenting concrete facts in a way that they are not misleading. Instead, you are using wiki space to promote your personal opinions and believes, which may or may not be accurate.

"Eurasianet has consistently provided accurate articles throughout the election campaign in Armenia."

1. Eurasianet is simply not the best expert in the field of local Armenian politics. This is like asking expert opinion on Molecular Physics from an Orthopedist (both are respected professions that require education and knowledge, yet an expert on one is not necessarily going to know the other).

That is your opinion on Eurasianet. As far as I'm concerned, it's an independent third-party news source not affiliated with any political party in Armenia. Serouj (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Eurasianet did not provide any source of the poll numbers they received. Furthermore, no third party has confirmed that their polling was conducted accurately. This does not mean that they are necessarily inaccurate, but considering the controversy and conflicting results from other polls, it seems counterproductive and disbalanced that you would reference only one source, without any evidence, other than your own claim that they are accurate.

Eurasianet is the source of the poll numbers. Since they're a reliable news source, we are citing them. We've included the Populus poll, whose numbers are almost double. There are always a certain amount of errors in random polling; this is well-known and not unusual. Serouj (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It seems like the you consider accurate only those sources, that correspond to your personal opinion on the matter. Simply stating that Eurasianet is accurate (and implying that other sources are not) does not make it more and other sources less accurate or reliable. It only creates disbalanced and misleading picture, which you refuse to support by any evidence other than your own claim.

I invite you to add results from other sources. No one is stopping you. For your education, the Eurasianet poll was added by me, while the Populus poll was added by User:Սահակ.Serouj (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Your opinion on British Populus won't stop from their survey being listed here." 1. You can simply do a search on google to see that British Populus was mixed in and several dozens controversies. This is not a matter of my opinion (which I have not even voiced on this matter). It is a matter of presenting balanced information on this issue, and using controversial poll agency like British Populus as your only source is hardly the best way to go about it. 2. I was not suggesting removing them; but if you are going to quite them (which is fine) then you also need to quote other polls that had different numbers.

Again, you're assuming I'm the person who added the Populus poll, which is wrong. In reality, it doesn't matter who added it. I'm not sure what it is that you're suggesting. If you'd like to add another poll, then by all means, do so. It will, however, be required to be referenced. Serouj (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"BTW, their "31 percent" of voters supporting HHk is on the HIGH side, so I don't know why you are complaining!)"

1. Numbers do not matter (as well as subjective opinions). It is the principle of presenting accurate and balanced information. By the way, I am not even a fan of the party, never even voted for them. 2. I am not complaining; I am merely point out inaccuracies in this article.

"If you have better sources, then why not help Wikipedia out by doing some work instead of making suggestions to others?"

Your suggestions to work, while you do not even know me or what I do, combined with your claims that I'm complaining, are rather rude and are aimed at attacking me as a person. I would prefer keeping this discussion about the topic itself, no need to get personal. I hope you understand that personal attacks are not the best way to have a civilized discussion. Nzurabyan (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article, we reference both sources such that there is no ambiguity as to where the data is coming from: "According to Eurasianet..." and "According to Populus..." Polls are inherently biased as they are based on a random sampling of the population. That they are biased, though, doesn't mean that they cannot be included in Wikipedia! Just as long as they are cited. Serouj (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To sum up, I think the polling data that we have in the article is well-balanced, but could use some more data points: Eurasianet's poll of 16% is on the low side, while Populus's poll of 31% is on the higher end. So I think the two complement one another nicely. Serouj (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Corruption

Sub-section: HHK official accused in corruption

This whole section is based on one article from Armenian Liberty that indicates that a single member of a party was accused (please note, not under investigation, but simply accused) in corruption (while he maintains his innocence, which you failed to mention).

While there may or may not be widespread corruption in party's ranks, you have not presented any valid sources to support that statement or prove it within reasonable doubt. Yet, your wording makes a false generalization and creates impression that the whole party is considered corrupt. Once again, this is a personal perspective and viewpoint presented as a factual matter- which is misleading.

Suggestions: either find more reliable sources that would prove corruption of the members or remove the sub-section of the article, since it represents your (or Armenia Liberty's articles) personal viewpoint, rather than a fact. Nzurabyan (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The accusations against Khatchatrian is an ongoing case; he is under investigation. From the article: "The official added that he will forward the case to state prosecutors after the Audit Chamber completes financial inspections of government bodies in Syunik by the end of this year."

Also, the section is a work in progress. There are numerous corrupt elected officials in the HHK (and not only the HHK, other political parties too; so don't think the HHK is being singled out here). It's just a matter of importing the data from the available reliable news sources which thankfully can be found on the web. Serouj (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)