Talk:Adana massacre

The Dispute

It appears that Coolcat has edited the page to add factual accuracy dispute comment onto this page without giving a comment as to why. Nor any effort to correct or verify the articly seems to have been taken. There are none of his/her opinions on the talk page neither. Can he post a comment related to this situation. Otherwise if no evidence can be given to the validity of factual accuracy dispute then it should be removed. Simply commenting it is disputed isn't enough. Meok 08:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however I am very busy with Armenian Genocide. This article will be discussed after Armenian Genocide is resolved, this material was moved form Armenian Genocide. One problem at a time. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given. A "I will do it later" does not suffice. Particularly as the dispute related to the Armenian Genocide will likely and has taken a long time. Your work with that page does not have an end time in sight Meok 12:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are no references or sources why are you removing the "factual accuracy dispute" comment. Isn't it unfair? One can enter a fictitous but controversial event into Wikipedia but does not give any references, and there will not be any notice regarding the accurateness of the article, it is totally unfair. We are talking about "holocaust". This is a serious accusation. You cannot simply say that "Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given." This is not a game. I propose the opposite with your logic: Well until any references and serious sources are given "factual accuracy dispute" should stay. Cansın 7.49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

i am planning to put the factual accuracy notice back, since i cannot see any serious objections to cansin's explanation. in case i forget it, anyone is welcome to do it.Fethi 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

i have done it.Fethi 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy notice do not fit here. The position presented in that article exist, factual accuracy notice is used when there is a misrepresentation of a position. The POV notice is what I think you wanted to add. When the other version is not presented, or not as it should, it is a POV and not a factual accuracy notice. Once I have time, I will be working on this article. Regards. Fadix 17:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename

Holocaust, until now, is broadly used to the Holocaust itself. This is not a good terminology for this case of massacre - or genocide. Lapaz

The word "holocaust" was used for the Armenian Genocide, before the Jewish Genocide. But I agree, massacre fits better with this article.--Moosh88 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the use of the word "holocaust" to describe the treatment of the Armenians earlier than its use for the Jews? As for the word "genocide", I think it was coined in the 1940's. --Macrakis 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably Adana massacres would be better still, as it is much used by scholars and well reflects the moltiplicity of attacks in the region and in the city. --Aldux 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No terms, whether "massacre" or "rebellion," are widely used in scholarly sources since there hasn't been much academic focus on this subject matter. My suggestion is to come up with a more neutral title so as to be inclusive of both Armenian and Turkish deaths. SouthernComfort 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but here we cannot agree. Many articles use the expression massacre, and the same point that there was a revolt is doubtful. As for refusing scholars on the ground that they are Armenian Americans, then no Jew should speak on the holocaust, which is absurd. I am sorry, but McCarthy remains too isolated to accept this view to the level of changing the name to the article. Also, he only cites it briefly, without explaining why it's a revolt and not a massacre, so we can't even use him to have an alternative version, unless he exposes it better elsewhere. But what thing is clear only academic sources should be accepted, ant they must not be in Armenian or Turkish (this is an English wikipedia)--Aldux 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not refuse Armenian scholars, but I find it interesting that those who make this same argument also reject Turkish scholars. That is a blatant double standard. Both sides have their POVs. As for McCarthy, he is an academic source and as far as WP policy goes, he is perfectly fine as he fulfills the conditions of verifiability. Therefore to judge him would be POV. As such, we must come to some compromise since we are not agreed on either "massacre" or "rebellion" as far as the title goes. SouthernComfort 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Claims

Thousands of Armenians were locked in schools, hospitals and churches and burned en masse. What is the source of this claim? SouthernComfort 02:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the fire was observable hundreds feets from there from Battleships stationed on the Sea from various countries. I don't understand what do you mean by non-Armenian or non-Turkish Works to give credence to a position. There has been various reports of the events, Gibbons, Helen Davenport. The Red Rugs of Tarsus: A Woman’s Record of the Armenian Massacre of 1909. New York: The Century Co., 1917 , one example. Raymond H. Kévorkian prepared volume ( LA CILICIE (1909-1921) DES MASSACRES D'ADANA AU MANDAT FRANÇAIS) contains various references from neutral parties, you will find from it loads of references on the event, including Ottoman government official statistics claiming a little over 600 Muslim deaths and 20,000 Christian deaths, mostly Armenians. There has been also works published of memoirs of those who saw the burning. Fad (ix) 03:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana rebellion?

This doesn't conform to name conventions, what is called Adana massacre is about the death of at least 17 thousand Armenians(according to Ottoman sources) to 35 thousands according to other sources(such as Rummel figures). This is what this article covers, deaths of people can not be called rebellion. While the deaths of hundreds in Khojali in its entry is called massacre, tragedy and even genocide, I don't see anything called 'rebellion' or any other positions even thought the position vehiculed on that pages is more controversial in the academic world than the qualification of massacre in the cases of Adana. I don't see any mention of rebellion for the entry about Sebrenisca massacres while the Adana massacre costed two times more lives. Fad (ix) 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

17 thousand Armenians, may i ask you for Ottoman resouces than showes the figure ? I have seen that the number of casulties were around 1500, not 17.000.

We've discussed this before. We can't have another article called Adana rebellion because that would be a blatant POV fork. SouthernComfort 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you understand name conventions. Let me repeat. Quantum mechanic and Super String theory are two different interpretation of the physical reality, but yet in the entry about Quantum mechanic you won't find any mention of 'also called Super String.' This entry is a main, regarding the death of about 20,000, it is not about what is called Adana rebellion, the rebellion stand for a position that maintains that the Armenians of Adana rebelled and not the death of those same Armenians. Also, there is even less justification to adding something such than adding 'also called Super String' in an article about Quantum mechanic because the also called is only used when it is a term which is used in parallel and not when it threats another thing. Now, who calls the deaths in Adana 'Adana rebellion?' Even McCarthy doesn't do so, what he does is that he justifies those deaths by claiming rebellion, but rebellion is not a parallel term for those deaths which the article is supposed to threat. That there was a claim for rebellion in Adana has a place in the article, but the Adana deaths are not also called 'Adana rebellion,' rebellion is the justification of the circunstance of those deaths, which is a different thing.

Well, I disagree because the inevitable result of this will be another article called "Adana rebellion" which will principally focus on the Turkish POV. Both these articles will end up as POV forks. If everyone is alright with that (despite it being against WP guidelines, then there's not much else I can say. But the fact remains that McCarthy and the Turkish writers do not refer to this whole series of events as a "massacre" but "rebellion." SouthernComfort 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can count on my fingers the number of enought notable works that sibstitute to the massacre the term rebellion to refer to the deaths, and we don't have to creat another article, nothing prevent us to say in the article that the Turkish position places importances on a rebellion to explain those deaths, the thing here is that there artile is about the death and if we respect name conventions we will name it such. Fad (ix) 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're right (that another article won't be started). SouthernComfort 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian killed pregnant womans!

At that time , armenians were attacting turkish people. And they were attacking defendless innocent people. they killed pregnant woman and opened her belly just for fun to check whether baby is male or female.

Do you want me to give another story? I have many. There was a guy and his neithbor was armenian. At that time, armenians captured him and they tied him to a tree. And they started to cut his children's ear. They forced him to eat ears of his children. They didn't killed this guy. Because they wanted him to suffer by thinking his dead childrens.

In adana, people ascaped to mountains to survive because armenians were cutting them.

I beg you !! Dont show armenian as angel please.. We didnt forget anything and "armenian genocide propanganda" is nothing more than insulting us.