This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TimothyBlue (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 24 April 2023 (→The events of 1915 as a period of inter-ethnic conflict: closed, see close comments (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:57, 24 April 2023 by TimothyBlue (talk | contribs) (→The events of 1915 as a period of inter-ethnic conflict: closed, see close comments (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenian genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. Moreschi 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | Other talk page banners | ||||
| |||||
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
On my last reverted edit
My last edit here was reverted by @Buidhe with the comment "Please get consensus for these changes" - here's a quick comment on my edit (to clarify my shorter edit comment). I changed the term "Syriac" to "Assyrian" in three paragraphs. The two last ones are pretty obvious as Remy (2015) explicitly uses "Assyrians", not "Syriacs" - so not quite sure why this was reverted. As for the first section, Assyrian is more commonly used, and the genocide is more frequently referred to as "Assyrian genocide", compared to e.g. "Syriac genocide". And Assyrian is also used here on Misplaced Pages as the WP:COMMONNAME. This section was changed here a while back by you, Buidhe, without any consensus from what I can find? The article should at least use the slash term in the first section. Shmayo (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- All Assyrians in 1915 were Syriac Christians but not all Syriac Christians referred to here were Assyrians depending on what terminology is used. Suny does use "Assyrians" but not all sources do likewise—Kevorkian for example uses "Syriac". In the Sayfo article I split the difference and used both terms depending on which population is referred to, but that is too complex for this article imo. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I get your point, but do not fully agree. Protestant Assyrians also lived in Midyat at the time. But that is not the point anyway. Correct, not all sources do - but Suny does so here when describing the event, and a majority uses Assyrian as the umbrella term here (...which should not be ignored, right?). Same goes for the article on Misplaced Pages. My last point was not addressed, but still stands. A slash term should be used in the first section, at least. Shmayo (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Any further comments on the above? Shmayo (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Will go ahead and revert it back then. Shmayo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Why do you keep reverting on the basis of "no consensus" (WP:DNRNC) when you are not addressing any of my points above here on the talk page? Shmayo (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I already explained the reasoning for using "Syriac". (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- You referred to consensus in your edit comment, but have not directed me to such discussions. I am questioning the revert of my edit above; "All Assyrians in 1915 were Syriac Christians but not all Syriac Christians referred to here were Assyrians depending on what terminology is used" is not answering my points above. Obviously the majority of sources speak on an "Assyrian genocide" compared to a "Syriac genocide". Also, the source used for the event described here in particular use the term "Assyrian" - then I think there should be a clear reason for not using "Assyrian" in that paragraph. Further, I am suggesting a compromise above, not addressed either. Shmayo (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will add the slash term, as I suggested for compromise above. Will do the same in the second part as well, even though the source explicitly uses "Assyrians" for the event in question. Shmayo (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Main photograph
The photograph in the main photo is really lacking in quality. I propose we change this. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- What photograph would you use instead? (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will list them here soon. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Here is one, which is one of the most iconic photos of the genocide. Much more clearer than the current photo. Nocturnal781 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Ambassador Morgenthau's Story p314.jpg is very good quality and graphically illustrates the horrors of the genocide. This would have the added effect of making any denialists think twice before regurgitating Turkish government propaganda on this talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the one of Henry Morgenthau as the main image. It has a tree standing in the middle of the picture. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you view its commons page it is used on many articles. Clearly not that much of a concern. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is used in many articles, but not as the main image, about which this discussion is supposed to be. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you view its commons page it is used on many articles. Clearly not that much of a concern. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- My issues with this image are
- It does not convey as much information as the current image, since it's just a pile of dead bodies whereas the current image shows how deportation occurred and includes perpetrators as well as victims
- NOTCENSORED urges using a less graphic image as the top image if possible.
- (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the one of Henry Morgenthau as the main image. It has a tree standing in the middle of the picture. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- This one cannot be used. If Wegner actually took it, there may be copyright issues because he died less than 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well it can be changed to published before the 1928 version for the license. This image is widely available in many websites and other similar sites that list it as public use. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- In order for "published before 1928" to be valid, you would need to track down an actual publication of the image before 1928. That would be great, as the image would then be usable in the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well it can be changed to published before the 1928 version for the license. This image is widely available in many websites and other similar sites that list it as public use. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Ambassador Morgenthau's Story p314.jpg is very good quality and graphically illustrates the horrors of the genocide. This would have the added effect of making any denialists think twice before regurgitating Turkish government propaganda on this talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Here is one, which is one of the most iconic photos of the genocide. Much more clearer than the current photo. Nocturnal781 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will list them here soon. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Opening paragraph is misorienting readers
Many attempts have been made by several contributors on this talk page to bring to the attention of the editors of this weak article, which unfortunately only gets worse with time, that the lede, not to mention other paragraphs for which hundreds of other RS-based edits have been suggested, is disorienting in several respects. Yet, to this date, not even slightest improvement has been made. It is as if the editors are telling their readers: “you have to accept what we’ve scribbled”.
First, (and I’ll skip the fact of depreciating the term “Genocide” appearing in the former version to a lower-case “g” to avoid accusations of bludgeoning) is the clause “during World War I”, to which a clarification can be found in the description under the .djvu image on the right, which sets the date from 1915 to 1917. I’ve lost count, honestly, how many times and how many RS have been suggested here—all attesting that the genocide lasted well into 1918. I’m not trying to offer up my ancestors’ story as an RS, God forbid, but my paternal relatives miraculously escaped Turkish atrocities in 1918. My maternal great grandmother’s body was dismembered by the Turks when she, together with her siblings and her children, attempted to flee across the border to Russia in 1918 (of these, only my grandmother had survived). And now, editors of a “free” online encyclopedia are telling me, and millions of descendants of the victims of Turkish atrocities, that the genocide lasted until 1917? Ugh…
Second, the clause “the ruling Committee of Union and Progress” gives an incomplete and thus misleading information about the CUP because another Misplaced Pages article, Committee of Union and Progress, to which the hyper link takes the reader, says nothing about the widely known, historically proven, and generally accepted fact that the CUP, the culprit of the Armenian atrocities, was not just “the ruling committee” or “a secret revolutionary organization and political party”, but the wartime government of the Ottoman Empire. I fail to see how the editors of this article can disregard this fact which was acknowledged by scores of historians, genocide scholars, political scientists, and international lawyers? Misplaced Pages editors, do you seriously think that not mentioning the CUP as the wartime government, and mentioning it only as some obscure “ruling committee”, contributes to quality improvement of this article?
Third, (and I, again, skip the dreamed-up figure “around one million” to avoid accusations of bludgeoning) is there a particular reason (not being a professional editor as you are, I’d love to know) as to why Armenian males, many of whom were also forcibly Islamized and the fact, as you surely know has been acknowledged in many RS, cannot be added to Armenian women and children?
Forth, similarly, is there a particular reason why the Mesopotamian Desert, another widely known mass gravesite of the Armenians, as you no doubt know from RS, cannot be added to the Syrian Desert? I deliberately avoid repeating my earlier edits with regard to both points in order not to be accused of bludgeoning, bad faith, obscenity, and crap like that.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- @73.173.64.115: I can't answer all your questions but I can answer a few
- 1) The Committee of Union and Progress being the wartime government is pretty clear from the article, the CUP being the ruling party during WW1 naturally makes the logical association, I believe your misconceptions arises from the word "Committee" which is part of their name (see seperate article)
- 2) forcefully islamized males are few and far between in RS-s I've seen, the numbers were not as large as the women and children, please do provide RSs if otherwise.
- 3) the Mesopotamian Desert you refer to is part of the Syrian Desert, the Syrian desert includes Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the northern parts of Saudi Arabia. - Kevo (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- 1) For the lay readers, absolutely not clear. I’m aware, of course, that the word “Committee” is part of the CUP’s name, but it’s a part of their name as a “secret revolutionary organization and political party”, a definition given in a separate article Committee of Union and Progress. When visitors of Misplaced Pages read an article, they’re not expected to make “logical associations” but consume information which the editors must lay out in an easily discernible format. The clause “Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress”, with a hyper link to a separate article describing it as “a secret revolutionary organization and political party”, does not in any way give your uninformed readers the slightest idea that this “ruling committee”, “secret revolutionary organization”, and “political party” was, in fact, the official government of the Ottoman Empire. Besides, it is hard to imagine that some obscure “ruling committee” was capable of masterminding and perpetrating a crime of such immense proportions as the Armenian Genocide.
- 2) It can't be said that forcefully Islamized Armenian males were “few and far between”. I’m not sure what RSs you’ve seen, but there are, in fact, very scarce numbers given in the sources for Islamized women and children so they could be compared with males. It’s no sweat for me to provide RSs, but from my bitter experience contributing to this weak and selectively written article, hardly will editors make any edits. They seem to be pretty satisfied with the existing wording and content, especially in parts related to the number of murdered Armenians, the Ottoman Armenian population number, and the Armenians’ historical habitat which, as I came to learn from this article, was in some “Anatolia”.
- 3) The Syrian desert includes southern Syria, western Iraq, and east Jordan, but not all of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, as you claim. That being the reason why I suggested to specify Mesopotamian desert.73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Good article but there is a several mistakes. For example:
- During their invasion of Russian and Persian territory in 1914, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians.
- Article about Caucasus campaign in Misplaced Pages and sources in this article says "The Russian military campaign started on 1 November 1914 with the Russian invasion of Turkish Armenia.". Blubluman (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, you began to edit also earlier, but didn't sign as Davidian. Well, as before, walls of text will hardly get read and addressed. But you began to edit also on other articles and I congratulate you for that. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Motives
Isn’t turkifaction also a motive? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:114E:14D7:208A:E61E (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- See the second paragraph of the "Aims" section (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
"This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization."
This sentence is worded in a very misleadingly general way. Obviously, there is still an existing Armenian civilization (there is a country called Armenia!) Perhaps it should be qualified with more words at the end. For example: "This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in what is now Turkey." (?) Jplennon (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It should, and used to, say "in eastern Anatolia", as there is indeed an Armenian presence in the capital but Armenians were prevented from organizing as a community in the rest of Turkey, as explained in Suciyan's book. Now fixed. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- There was no such a thing as "eastern Anatolia" throughout more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization. What?? I’ve lost count how many times it was suggested here that "eastern Anatolia" is a relatively recent Turkish toponymic invention, essentially a tautology translated from Greek as "Eastern East", to replace the geographically and historically correct term "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands", the indigenous place of habitat of the Armenians. I personally offered a more neutral toponym, very often used in RSs, "Eastern Asia Minor" or "Western Asia". Editors, you're supposed to be unbiased. Why do you keep this cooked-up joke "eastern Anatolia" in the text?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Please see the Archives in this talk for tons of RSs using "Eastern Asia Minor" as the Armenians' historical place of habitat. Can anyone here explain why one toponym, "eastern Anatolia" used in a number of RSs, is given preference over another toponym, "eastern Asia Minor" used extensively in other RSs? Which Misplaced Pages policy gives editors the right to cherry-pick one term to the detriment of the other? Please refer your contributors and readers to that particular policy. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- There was no such a thing as "eastern Anatolia" throughout more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization. What?? I’ve lost count how many times it was suggested here that "eastern Anatolia" is a relatively recent Turkish toponymic invention, essentially a tautology translated from Greek as "Eastern East", to replace the geographically and historically correct term "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands", the indigenous place of habitat of the Armenians. I personally offered a more neutral toponym, very often used in RSs, "Eastern Asia Minor" or "Western Asia". Editors, you're supposed to be unbiased. Why do you keep this cooked-up joke "eastern Anatolia" in the text?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I'm not sure where this idea that "eastern Anatolia" is a recent invention comes from. Read the sources from that period, including the Ottoman Armenian ones, and you'll see that it was interchangeably used as much as "Armenia," "Turkish Armenia," etc. In fact, it's rare to come across Ottoman Armenian sources referring to the region as the Armenian Plateau or Highlands (funnily enough, those are terms that originated in academia in the later 20th century, and even then to use it for the ancient and Bronze Age periods). Just because Anatolia means "east" in Greek doesn't mean this broad geographic region didn't have its constituent western, northern, and eastern ends. Note this is eastern with lowercase "e," not uppercase, which is indeed a modern invention by the Turkish state. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that “eastern Anatolia” is a relatively recent invention comes from the Ottoman own maps and historiography, in which the term “Anatolia” until the late nineteenth century was used to indicate a territory of the empire which was situated in the western part of the Peninsula of Asia Minor. The approximate borders of Anatolia extended from Alexandretta, today’s Turkified İskenderun, and extending north-eastward through Marash, Malatia, Yerznka (Erzinjan), and Baiburt to the Black Sea coast. The remaining territory was never Anatolia; most of it was geographically and historically known as Armenian highlands or “Armenian Plateau”. Prior to the Turkification laws adopted by the Republic of Turkey at the end of 1920s, the term “Anatolia” referred to the territory to the west of the Armenian Highlands, which consists of around 60 per cent of modern-day Turkey. After Turkification, to answer your question where “this idea” that eastern Anatolia is a recent invention comes from, the remaining territory lying to the east of Anatolia was designated as “eastern Anatolia”, a never-before existed geographical toponym. Go read Misplaced Pages’s own article Place name changes in Turkey and familiarize yourself with Ottoman own maps on which eastern parts of modern-day Turkey were shown as Ermenistan (Armenia), here https://www.armgeo.am/en/anatolia/. Oh, and I forgot, next time please don’t tell a historian of late Ottoman period to “read the sources from that period”, okay? Thank you. And also, since you're not a professional in the field, please enrich your knowledge on the toponyms "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands" by reading Robert Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" https://www.amazon.com/Armenia-Historical-Robert-H-Hewsen/dp/0226332284 from which you'd be surprised to know that these terms have not "originated in academia in the later 20th century" (?!). This said, may I remind that I personally offered “eastern Asia Minor”, a neutral term which is extensively used in RSs (please see Archives on this talk page for references to these many RSs). So I’m afraid I may need to repeat my question to which I received no answer. Which particular Misplaced Pages policy gives editors the right to cherry-pick one term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively used in the RSs? Please refer us to that policy. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- While it's certainly the case that this region was commonly called "Armenia" or "Ottoman Armenia" at the time, modern day reliable sources don't usually use this language as it is confusing to readers now that Armenia is an independent country. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is a very lame counterargument. And the reasons why it is lame, to put it mildly, are that: (1) if you admit the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” at the time, then it must appear under that particular name in the text because the topic of the article that you had so clumsily drafted, and I’m sorry to have to say this, pertains to the period when the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia”, and not “eastern Anatolia”; (2) you chose to disregard many other modern-day reliable sources that I and others had brought forward, in which the region figures as “eastern Asia Minor”, neglecting these sources to the extent that there is no single mention of this term as an equally extensively used toponym to denominate the area (again, please take pains to re-visit the Archives on this talk page for dozens of such RSs); and (3) only one-fourth of what has once been historic Armenia is now the independent country of Armenia, but if you truly wished to highlight a distinction between the modern country and Armenia as a toponym designating the pre-genocide region, well, you know, there is this simple way of doing it: just put “the Republic of Armenia”, and your readers will perfectly understand that this name refers to the independent country. Besides, what does the name of modern independent country have to do with the article on the Armenian Genocide? But my question, and I’m sorry to have to repeat it for the third time, was not about “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” or “Armenian Highlands”. My question was about the term “eastern Asia Minor” which, as you must know, figures equally extensively in modern-day reliable sources. If you know there is this alternative term used as frequently as “eastern Anatolia”, why is it that only “eastern Anatolia” figures across the text? Why isn’t “eastern Asia Minor” mentioned as an alternative name or used interchangeably in the text? Aren’t you guys supposed to be neutral? Where is your neutrality?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I’m sorry. I didn’t hear back, so I have to repeat for the fourth time. And, of course, the purpose of repetition is not to suggest in any way that Misplaced Pages editors have difficulty understanding simple things. It is that for the fourth time no one cares to direct contributors and readers to a particular policy in this inimitable “free” online encyclopedia, which gives editors the right to select one particular term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively figuring in the RSs. In particular, the toponym “eastern Asia Minor” is used extensively in the RSs to denominate the place of habitat of Western (Ottoman) Armenians (again, please see Archives for several dozen extracts from RSs to that regard). And the relatively new toponymic invention “eastern Anatolia” is equally extensively used in the RSs to denominate the area. I’m just trying to get an idea which Misplaced Pages policy allows the editors to make a selection in favor of one term to the detriment of the other? And if no such policy exists (I couldn’t find it, but you all are professionals in the field, aren’t you?), then I guess my follow-up question is: isn’t this a sheer violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV by Misplaced Pages’s own editors?73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The main area where millennia of Armenia culture was wiped out by genocide is exactly Eastern Anatolia Region plus some other places of Armenian settlement. It doesn't matter that the toponym is relatively recent. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Friend, you're not answering the question. Did you read the question? Specially for you, for the fifth time. Sorry. Which Misplaced Pages policy gives the editors the right to cherry-pick one widely used term to the detriment of the other widely used term? And, for the purpose of enriching your knowledge, please be aware that there was no such thing as "Eastern Anatolia Region" throughout millennia of Armenians' presence in their place of habitat. The place was called EXACTLY the Armenian highlands or Armenian Plateau or Ermenistan on Turkey's own maps. And since you took pains to redirect me to Eastern Anatolia Region, do please have a quick look at what the very first sentence in this article Anatolia states. Do you see what the sentence reads? It reads: "Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor". So I guess my question is, again, how come one Misplaced Pages article provides an alternative name for Anatolia, but you folks here stubbornly refuse any of the alternative, and much older and more authentic, names for Eastern Anatolia, such as, for example, Eastern Asia Minor? Curious to know.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Besides, since when another Misplaced Pages article is considered an RS so you redirect me to it and state cocksurely that it was "exactly" Eastern Anatolia Region where the millennia of Armenians' presence was wiped out? Very unprofessional, I'm sorry to say.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- And since you brought up this article Eastern Anatolia Region here, did you read this sentence in the introductory section: "The region encompasses most of Western Armenia (Armenian: Արեւմտյան Հայաստան) and had a large population of indigenous Armenians until the Armenian genocide". Did you? How about this section "Substitution for the name Armenia" in the same article? Did you take heed of it? What conclusion can you make out of it?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The Armenian Plateau and the Armenian Highlands are larger geological areas than Turkey's Eastern Anatolia Region, and they still contain pockets of Armenian civilization outside of Turkey. So the sentence is still essentially correct, that the Armenian genocide ended Armenian civilization inside Turkey, mainly in this one region of Turkey. Your style of discussion here is combative; you might be better served if you propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B. Better yet, you could register yourself a username and start earning enough experience points to edit the article directly. Or were you blocked in the past for doing this? Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your reply demonstrates how careless and inattentive you are towards your contributors’ suggestions. Long before you popped up in this talk, I already proposed to replace Text A: “Eastern Anatolia” by Text B: “Eastern Asia Minor”. Or at least use both terms interchangeably in the text because both are equally extensively used in RSs. Or you were asleep in the past not noticing this? So careless you are that you bring up the "Armenian Plateau" and the "Armenian Highlands", a term I’ve never proposed. And please show me a word or a clause or a passage in my remarks above that remotely suggest that my “style” is combative. If you fail to do so, you wouldn't wish to be called a liar, would you?73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The Armenian Plateau and the Armenian Highlands are larger geological areas than Turkey's Eastern Anatolia Region, and they still contain pockets of Armenian civilization outside of Turkey. So the sentence is still essentially correct, that the Armenian genocide ended Armenian civilization inside Turkey, mainly in this one region of Turkey. Your style of discussion here is combative; you might be better served if you propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B. Better yet, you could register yourself a username and start earning enough experience points to edit the article directly. Or were you blocked in the past for doing this? Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- And since you brought up this article Eastern Anatolia Region here, did you read this sentence in the introductory section: "The region encompasses most of Western Armenia (Armenian: Արեւմտյան Հայաստան) and had a large population of indigenous Armenians until the Armenian genocide". Did you? How about this section "Substitution for the name Armenia" in the same article? Did you take heed of it? What conclusion can you make out of it?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Besides, since when another Misplaced Pages article is considered an RS so you redirect me to it and state cocksurely that it was "exactly" Eastern Anatolia Region where the millennia of Armenians' presence was wiped out? Very unprofessional, I'm sorry to say.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Friend, you're not answering the question. Did you read the question? Specially for you, for the fifth time. Sorry. Which Misplaced Pages policy gives the editors the right to cherry-pick one widely used term to the detriment of the other widely used term? And, for the purpose of enriching your knowledge, please be aware that there was no such thing as "Eastern Anatolia Region" throughout millennia of Armenians' presence in their place of habitat. The place was called EXACTLY the Armenian highlands or Armenian Plateau or Ermenistan on Turkey's own maps. And since you took pains to redirect me to Eastern Anatolia Region, do please have a quick look at what the very first sentence in this article Anatolia states. Do you see what the sentence reads? It reads: "Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor". So I guess my question is, again, how come one Misplaced Pages article provides an alternative name for Anatolia, but you folks here stubbornly refuse any of the alternative, and much older and more authentic, names for Eastern Anatolia, such as, for example, Eastern Asia Minor? Curious to know.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The main area where millennia of Armenia culture was wiped out by genocide is exactly Eastern Anatolia Region plus some other places of Armenian settlement. It doesn't matter that the toponym is relatively recent. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I’m sorry. I didn’t hear back, so I have to repeat for the fourth time. And, of course, the purpose of repetition is not to suggest in any way that Misplaced Pages editors have difficulty understanding simple things. It is that for the fourth time no one cares to direct contributors and readers to a particular policy in this inimitable “free” online encyclopedia, which gives editors the right to select one particular term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively figuring in the RSs. In particular, the toponym “eastern Asia Minor” is used extensively in the RSs to denominate the place of habitat of Western (Ottoman) Armenians (again, please see Archives for several dozen extracts from RSs to that regard). And the relatively new toponymic invention “eastern Anatolia” is equally extensively used in the RSs to denominate the area. I’m just trying to get an idea which Misplaced Pages policy allows the editors to make a selection in favor of one term to the detriment of the other? And if no such policy exists (I couldn’t find it, but you all are professionals in the field, aren’t you?), then I guess my follow-up question is: isn’t this a sheer violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV by Misplaced Pages’s own editors?73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- This is a very lame counterargument. And the reasons why it is lame, to put it mildly, are that: (1) if you admit the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” at the time, then it must appear under that particular name in the text because the topic of the article that you had so clumsily drafted, and I’m sorry to have to say this, pertains to the period when the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia”, and not “eastern Anatolia”; (2) you chose to disregard many other modern-day reliable sources that I and others had brought forward, in which the region figures as “eastern Asia Minor”, neglecting these sources to the extent that there is no single mention of this term as an equally extensively used toponym to denominate the area (again, please take pains to re-visit the Archives on this talk page for dozens of such RSs); and (3) only one-fourth of what has once been historic Armenia is now the independent country of Armenia, but if you truly wished to highlight a distinction between the modern country and Armenia as a toponym designating the pre-genocide region, well, you know, there is this simple way of doing it: just put “the Republic of Armenia”, and your readers will perfectly understand that this name refers to the independent country. Besides, what does the name of modern independent country have to do with the article on the Armenian Genocide? But my question, and I’m sorry to have to repeat it for the third time, was not about “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” or “Armenian Highlands”. My question was about the term “eastern Asia Minor” which, as you must know, figures equally extensively in modern-day reliable sources. If you know there is this alternative term used as frequently as “eastern Anatolia”, why is it that only “eastern Anatolia” figures across the text? Why isn’t “eastern Asia Minor” mentioned as an alternative name or used interchangeably in the text? Aren’t you guys supposed to be neutral? Where is your neutrality?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- While it's certainly the case that this region was commonly called "Armenia" or "Ottoman Armenia" at the time, modern day reliable sources don't usually use this language as it is confusing to readers now that Armenia is an independent country. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that “eastern Anatolia” is a relatively recent invention comes from the Ottoman own maps and historiography, in which the term “Anatolia” until the late nineteenth century was used to indicate a territory of the empire which was situated in the western part of the Peninsula of Asia Minor. The approximate borders of Anatolia extended from Alexandretta, today’s Turkified İskenderun, and extending north-eastward through Marash, Malatia, Yerznka (Erzinjan), and Baiburt to the Black Sea coast. The remaining territory was never Anatolia; most of it was geographically and historically known as Armenian highlands or “Armenian Plateau”. Prior to the Turkification laws adopted by the Republic of Turkey at the end of 1920s, the term “Anatolia” referred to the territory to the west of the Armenian Highlands, which consists of around 60 per cent of modern-day Turkey. After Turkification, to answer your question where “this idea” that eastern Anatolia is a recent invention comes from, the remaining territory lying to the east of Anatolia was designated as “eastern Anatolia”, a never-before existed geographical toponym. Go read Misplaced Pages’s own article Place name changes in Turkey and familiarize yourself with Ottoman own maps on which eastern parts of modern-day Turkey were shown as Ermenistan (Armenia), here https://www.armgeo.am/en/anatolia/. Oh, and I forgot, next time please don’t tell a historian of late Ottoman period to “read the sources from that period”, okay? Thank you. And also, since you're not a professional in the field, please enrich your knowledge on the toponyms "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands" by reading Robert Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" https://www.amazon.com/Armenia-Historical-Robert-H-Hewsen/dp/0226332284 from which you'd be surprised to know that these terms have not "originated in academia in the later 20th century" (?!). This said, may I remind that I personally offered “eastern Asia Minor”, a neutral term which is extensively used in RSs (please see Archives on this talk page for references to these many RSs). So I’m afraid I may need to repeat my question to which I received no answer. Which particular Misplaced Pages policy gives editors the right to cherry-pick one term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively used in the RSs? Please refer us to that policy. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I'm not sure where this idea that "eastern Anatolia" is a recent invention comes from. Read the sources from that period, including the Ottoman Armenian ones, and you'll see that it was interchangeably used as much as "Armenia," "Turkish Armenia," etc. In fact, it's rare to come across Ottoman Armenian sources referring to the region as the Armenian Plateau or Highlands (funnily enough, those are terms that originated in academia in the later 20th century, and even then to use it for the ancient and Bronze Age periods). Just because Anatolia means "east" in Greek doesn't mean this broad geographic region didn't have its constituent western, northern, and eastern ends. Note this is eastern with lowercase "e," not uppercase, which is indeed a modern invention by the Turkish state. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting information in Introduction and Infobox
The introductory section of this unrivalled article, in para. 3, states that “massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors were continued out by the Turkish nationalist movement during the Turkish War of Independence after World War I”. Yet the date in the infobox right next to this section states that the genocide lasted from 1915 to 1917. Please help your contributors and readers understand: if massacres and ethnic cleansing continued during the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) after World War I (after 1918), what pocket calculator did the authors of this article use that produced these discrepancies in dates so we don’t buy that particular brand for our home and office use? Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- There is no simple answer. The Armenian genocide happened in the mid-1890s, 1909 and 1914, then there were specific government orders in 1915 and 1916 which extended through 1917. More genocide was carried out through 1929. The heaviest years of official Turkish government action were 1915–1917. So the listing is not wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, please try hard to avoid making yourself a laughingstock. The Armenian Genocide did not happen during the Hamidian massacres of 1894-1896 or in Adana in 1909 or, what??, in 1914. Most genocide scholars and historians of the late Ottoman period admit that these acts of mass violence were not part of the genocide (a few experts disagree, but they are in minority). I have no clue where “more genocide was carried out through 1929” popped out from. By 1923, most pockets of the remaining Armenians were eradicated. If you think that the heaviest (?!) years of official Turkish government action (?!) were 1915-1917, it is your personal problem. Dozens of RSs have been provided here to demonstrate that a large cohort of scholars consider that the genocide lasted well into 1918 and until 1923.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The majority of RS acknowledge that ethnic cleansing also occurred during the TWOI, but don't count it as part of the Armenian genocide. Ditto for the Hamidian massacres which according to many historians had other motivations that distinguish them from genocide. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- The TWOI started in 1919 and ended in 1923. But the date in the infobox limits the period of genocidal atrocities to 1917. So, I guess, based on your logic, in 1918 Turks, what, took a break from killing, gang-raping, hanging, burning and burying Armenians alive? If there was a continuation of atrocity, whether or not it is “counted” as part of the Armenian Genocide, then the date in infobox must state this unequivocally. As for “the majority of RS”, lol. The majority of RS acknowledge the number of mass murdered Armenians as being 1.5 million. Should I remind you what rounded figure was cooked up in the lede sentence of this article or you'll have mercy on me?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- And I’m still waiting, patiently and for all other editors here to see, to be redirected to a Misplaced Pages policy where it is stated firmly and unequivocally that, in the case where there are two or more equally extensively used terms or toponyms in the RSs, you editors have the right to make a selection in favor of one term to the detriment of the other. This will be the FIFTH time I’m asking this simple question.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- The TWOI started in 1919 and ended in 1923. But the date in the infobox limits the period of genocidal atrocities to 1917. So, I guess, based on your logic, in 1918 Turks, what, took a break from killing, gang-raping, hanging, burning and burying Armenians alive? If there was a continuation of atrocity, whether or not it is “counted” as part of the Armenian Genocide, then the date in infobox must state this unequivocally. As for “the majority of RS”, lol. The majority of RS acknowledge the number of mass murdered Armenians as being 1.5 million. Should I remind you what rounded figure was cooked up in the lede sentence of this article or you'll have mercy on me?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Proposing Text A to be replaced by Text B
I hereby solemnly and simply propose to (a) either replace a relatively recently cooked up toponymic invention “eastern Anatolia” with a more geographically and historically correct and more neutral term “eastern Asia Minor” or (b) indicate that “eastern Anatolia” is also known as “eastern Asia Minor” and use both terms interchangeably in the text of this unrivalled article. This proposal is based on the fact that much larger number of Reliable Sources (please visit Archives in this talk) refer to the area where the bulk of the Armenian Genocide had been perpetrated, using names other than “eastern Anatolia”, such as, for example, “Ottoman Armenia”, “Turkish Armenia”, “Western Armenia”, “eastern Asia Minor”, “Western Asia”, etc. I personally proposed but have to repeat especially for those editors who have eyes but don't see, to use “eastern Asia Minor”. Please visit Misplaced Pages’s own article Anatolia, where an equally extensively used alternative term “Asia Minor” is mentioned.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Proposing Text A to be substantiated by Text B
To bring the following text in the introductory section: “Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors continued through the Turkish War of Independence after World War I, carried out by Turkish nationalists” to conformity with the partially indicated date in infobox: 1915-1917, I hereby simply propose to make the following clarifying addition in infobox. "Date 1915-1917, continuing well into 1918 and even into 1923". I stand ready to provide scores of RSs supporting this addition.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Ok, let's try this. Provide some of the RS but without sources we can't change it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The suggested wording is self contradictory. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- If there’s a will to improve this article, the wording can always be modified. But, I’m sorry to say, so far you’ve shown no will whatsoever to make alterations to your poorly drafted text, despite the fact that tons of RSs had been presented especially for such despicable text fragments as your voluntary rounding-up of the number of victims to “around one million” and your statement that the “two thousand years of Armenian civilization” were tied up to some never-before-heard “eastern Anatolia”.73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Of course I would double check the sourcing before any approval. And I would strongly recommend to provide accessible sources, but it can also accessible over the Misplaced Pages Library. But I wouldn't approve of a change on a contested FA I haven't read the source of it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The events of 1915 as a period of inter-ethnic conflict
CLOSED OP should note, this is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXING and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. See discussions at talk:Armenian genocide denialThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The events of 1915 were a tragic period in the history of the Ottoman Empire and its people. Turks, Armenians, and many others suffered immensely from the effects of war, famine, disease, and violence. However, the Armenian claim that these events constitute a genocide perpetrated by Turks against Armenians is a misleading. Instead, the events of 1915 should be understood in their historical and political context, where both sides experienced losses and atrocities.
In 1914, First World War, one of the deadliest conflicts in history, broke out, which threatened the survival of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire faced multiple enemies on different fronts, including Russia, Britain, France, and Italy. Some of these powers had been seeking to exploit the weakness of the Empire and to carve out spheres of influence in its territories since the 1870s. They also supported and encouraged nationalist movements among some of the ethnic and religious groups that lived under Ottoman rule, such as the Armenians.
The Armenians were one of the oldest Christian communities in Anatolia, and had enjoyed a relatively peaceful coexistence with their Muslim neighbors for centuries. However, some Armenian groups became influenced by nationalist ideologies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and began to demand autonomy or independence from the Ottoman Empire. Some of them formed armed militias and engaged in terrorist activities against Ottoman officials and civilians. Some others collaborated with the invading Russian army, hoping to create an ethnically homogeneous Armenian state in eastern Anatolia. They instigated rebels in major towns notably in Zeitun, Van, Shabin-Karahisar, Urfa and Musadagh, where thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians were murdered by the Armenian forces.
The Ottoman government saw these actions as a serious threat to its security and territorial integrity, and decided to relocate some of the Armenian population from the war zones to other parts of the Empire. This decision was not aimed at exterminating or punishing the Armenians as a whole, but at preventing further rebellions and massacres. However, the relocation process was poorly planned and executed, and resulted in many deaths and hardships for the Armenians who were forced to leave their homes. Many of them died from hunger, disease, exposure, or attacks by bandits or hostile tribes along the way. The Ottoman authorities failed to protect them adequately or to provide them with sufficient food and medical care.
It is true that many innocent Armenians lost their lives during this tragic period, and we should expresses sorrow and sympathy for their suffering. However, we should also remember that many Turks and Kurds also died or were killed during this time, either from war-related causes or from Armenian attacks. The Ottoman government had no premeditated plan or intention to annihilate the Armenians as a distinct group, which is a necessary criterion for defining an act as genocide according to international law. Furthermore, the term genocide is anachronistic and inappropriate for describing the events of 1915, since it was coined after World War II and cannot be retroactively applied to historical cases.
References
- Binark. İ. (1995). Arşiv Belgelerine Göre Kafkaslar’da ve Anadolu’da Ermeni Mezâlimi/Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives–Vol. I (1906-1918) and Vol. II (1919). Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara
- Çiçek, K. (2012). The Great War and the forced migration of Armenians. Athol Books.
- Çiçek, K. (2020). The Armenians of Musa Dagh, 1915–1939: A Story of Insurgency and Flight. Lexington Books.
- Çiçek, K. (2010). Relocation of Ottoman Armenians in 1915: A Reassesment. Review of Armenians Studies, 22, 115-134.
- Dyer, G. (1976). Turkish ‘falsifiers’ and Armenian ‘deceivers’: historiography and the Armenian massacres. Middle Eastern Studies, 12(1), 99-107.
- Erickson, E. J. (2013). Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (p. 119). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Erickson, E. J. (2008). The Armenians and Ottoman military policy, 1915. War in History, 15(2), 141-167.
- Gauin, M. (2015). “Proving” a “Crime against Humanity”?. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 35(1), 141-157.
- Güçlü, Y. (2012). A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire.
- Halaçoğlu, Y. (2002). Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918) (No. 94). Turkish Historical Society Printing House.
- Halaçoğlu, Y. (2008). The story of 1915: what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? (No. 113). Turkish Historical Society.
- Halaçoğlu, Y. (2006). Die Armenierfrage. Wieser.
- Lewis, B. (1961). The emergence of modern Turkey (No. 135). Oxford University Press.
- Lewy, G. (2005). Revisiting the Armenian genocide. Insight Turkey, 89-99.
- Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A disputed genocide. University of Utah Press.
- Lewy, G. (2007). Can there be genocide without the intent to commit genocide?. Journal of Genocide Research, 9(4), 661-674.
- McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
- McCarthy, J. (2003). Missionaries and the American Image of the Turks. In Turkish-American Relations (pp. 49-71). Routledge.
- McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
- Palabıyık, M. S. (2015). Understanding the Turkish-Armenian Controversy Over 1915. Beta.
- Sarinay, Y. (2011). The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915–16. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 299-315.
- Sarınay, Y. (2001). Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on the Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians–Vol. I (1914-1919) and Vol. II (1919-1921). Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
- Stone, N. (2004). Armenia and Turkey. TLS-The Times Literary Supplement, (5298), 17-17.
- Yavuz, M. H. (2011). Contours of scholarship on Armenian-Turkish relations. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 231-251.
95.12.115.214 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- No. To start with,
thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians were murdered by the Armenian forces
during purported Armenian uprisings in 1915 is a complete lie. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)- This is a fact. It is clearly documented in contemporary reports. To write an impartial history of 1915, it is necessary to study the mutual killings.
- The telegram sent by the head official of the Mahmudi district of Van to the Ministry of Interior on 4 March 1915, describing the Armenian atrocities in the region cited in Kamuran Gürün's The Armenian File,
Those who were killed in the village of Merkehu: 41 men, 14 women
Those who were killed after being raped: 4 women
Those who were killed in the village of Ishtuju: 7 men, 4 women
Those who are alive among those who have been raped: 5 women
The wounded: 3 men, 2 women- Massacres of prisoners and Muslim population in the neighborhood of Kars and Ardahan,
The number of Muslims committed to the guards of Armenians and massacred by them after being inflicted physical pains upon and struck by the butt of rifles reached 30,000; the Armenians serving in the Ottoman army were deserting and deliberately surrendering to Russians to disclose information about the said army; Armenians from the Caucasus were first allowing to be taken prisoners by the Ottomans and afterwards evading and delivering to the Russians the intelligence they gathered.
— Documents on the Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians, Massacre Of Prisoners And Muslim Population in The Neighborhood Of Kars And Ardahan- The telegram sent from the prime ministry to the interior ministry taken from The Armenian File,
Some of the Armenians residing in quarters near military areas are hindering the activities of the Imperial Army which is engaged in protecting the Ottoman borders against the enemies of the State. They combine their efforts and action with the enemy, they join the ranks of the enemy. They organize attacks against the Armed Forces and innocent people, they engage in aggression, murder, terror, and pillage of Ottoman cities and towns, they provide the enemy with provisions, and manifest their audacity against fortified places.
- General Harbord's report on Armenia,
95.12.115.214 (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)We know, however, so much to be a fact that the Armenians in the new State are carrying on operations in view of exterminating the Mussulmen element in obedience to orders from the Armenian corps commander. We have had copies of their orders under our eyes. That the Armenians of Erivan are following a policy of extermination against the Mussulmen and this wave of sanguinary savagery has spread right up to our frontier is also established by the fact of the presence within our borders of numerous Mussulmen fleeing from death on the other side. The government of Erivan has, on the other hand, resorted to direct acts of provocation such as the practice of gunfire this side of the border.
— James G. Harbord, Conditions in the Middle East: The Report of Military Mission to Armenia, p. 35- The only sources that could support your claim of
thousands
are possibly #2 and #4, but even assuming these sources are credible (which I highly doubt) they both appear to be talking about Armenian reprisal killings after the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia, when the genocide in those areas had already occurred. You appear to be reversing cause and effect. - This article is based on recent, scholarly, non-WP:FRINGE sources. Nothing you provided qualifies. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- The document #2 is dated 6 March 1915, before the deportation order is taken; The document #4 describes the revenge killings after the deportation but this cannot justify the violence against civilians.
- This excerpt is from the document sent by the German Ambassador Wangenheim to the Germany Foreign Ministry dated 19 May 1915,
On 17 May 1915, Van was occupied by the Russian army. Armenians joined the ranks of the enemy and started massacring the Muslims. 80,000 Muslims are now fleeing towards Bitlis.
— cited in Nejat Göyünç's Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler/Armenians under Ottoman Rule and Yusuf Halaçoğlu's Facts on the Armenian Relocation- The report dated 1916 on the massacre committed in Bitlis and Van by the Russian and Armenian forces
95.12.115.214 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)During the occupation of Van and Bitlis terrible cruelties were commited by Russian and Armenian brigands against the muslim population; cossack cavalry arriving in Bitlis, massacred muslim families and children fleeing the Armenians; hearing that the Russians were coming to Van, Armenians uprose and pursued the fleeing muslim population trying to escape and tragically killed them, massacred thousands of women, young girls and men among those who didn't emigrate; all the population of the villages of Zive, Mollakâsım, Şeyhkara, Şeyhayne, Ayans, Paksi, Zorâbâd and many other villages, who stayed unable to emigrate were all exterminated and not a single person escaped the carnage; on the eve of the arrival of the Russians to Dir, a town attached to Hakkari, Armenians made irruptions on the roads and massacred all the male Kurdish population of the villages situated on these roads and cut up into chunks with daggers and swords more than thousand small children the oldest less than three years and used the cut and broken bodies as trenches and ravished more than four hundred Kurdish girls, the old women being killed.
— Documents on the Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians, p. 41
- The document #2 is dated 6 March 1915, before the deportation order is taken; The document #4 describes the revenge killings after the deportation but this cannot justify the violence against civilians.
- The only sources that could support your claim of
- This is a fact. It is clearly documented in contemporary reports. To write an impartial history of 1915, it is necessary to study the mutual killings.
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Armenian articles
- Top-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- FA-Class Turkey articles
- Top-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- FA-Class former country articles
- FA-Class Ottoman Empire articles
- High-importance Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Ottoman Empire articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- FA-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- FA-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles
- FA-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- FA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- FA-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report