Talk:Armenian genocide

Concerning this obvious systemic bias of the article !

I myself look at this article as a most clear example of what a "systemic bias" could be. Since the article is heavily propagating the claims that an "Armenian Genocide" has occurred and under-representing the counterarguments which falsify these claims, I myself was going to tag the article with Template:Systemic bias such as the following: Template:Systemic bias The number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure. Total Muslim deaths and refugees during these centuries are estimated to be several millions. It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence took place, close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey. According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease. In the discussion about the Armenian Genocide, McCarthy denies the genocide and is considered as the leading pro-Turkish scholar.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Just because the Turks are Muslims while the Armenians are not, doesn't give a reason to ignore the millions of the Turks who were killed in the same period of time.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome on behalf of the little people also editing at Armenian Genocide. I understand your issues, but I'm afraid with the best of good faith this is an article on the Armenian Genocide and, frankly, a systemic bias is inevitable. But I'll check those references of yours and perhaps edit elsewhere about the issues you raise. c1cada (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no systemic bias. You have answered the concerns with your post. I will help; you have stated that "It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence (NOTE: Refers to the Turkish War of Independence, not the Greek one), close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey" "According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease." During the Balkan Wars and the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Muslims were killed. It's unrelated to the Armenian Genocide, as Ottoman Armenians didn't actively participate in WWI; they were discharged from the Ottoman Army. Concerning the numbers: you said in the beginning "the number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure.". I will kindly add that this is unsupported by reliable sources. Owen said 2 million. And that is during the span of 10 years (1912-1922). McCarthy said 10 million. And that is...between the years 1821–1922 (100 years - you have stated it), from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire; that means you just made a POV claim. The numbers used by McCarthy refer to Muslims (Ottoman Muslim subjects) massacred at wars with Russia, Persia, Greece, Serbia, and countries that broke away from the Ottoman Empire, definitely not "Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs". Note that the Genocide took place in 1 year. Spare the rest; the POV tag is definitely an insult to the victims. --92slim (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of human aggression against other humans is lamentable, but it is not unanalyzable. The word "genocide" does not simply mean "someone killing someone else because of his or her ethnic group." Deaths which result from wars between (say) Serbian Christians and Muslim Turks, which have been ongoing for over a thousand years, are not necessarily genocidal, even if ethnically based, or even if at particular moments individual campaigns have been genocidal. "Genocide" has a definition, which most scholars say fits what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia 100 years ago. If you want to claim that what you talk about was also "genocide", fine, find a scholarly source, and go to the article Genocide and add it there. The Armenians would be the first to admit that theirs was not the only genocide that ever occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Which victims are you concerned about? The 10 million Turks (mostly unarmed civilians) who were either massacred or deported because of their faith & ethnicity or the 500,000-1 million Armenians who were simply deported (without any act of massacring)?--95.141.20.198 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about all victims. I hope that if there are no Wiki articles for genocides that you are aware of, that you will go and start them. That would be a good thing. I also encourage you to initiate a section in this current article called "denial of genocide" or some such thing, with good sources. But be sure to go to the Wiki article Genocide and read that - perhaps that is where your fundamental disagreement is. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice propaganda there. 10 million Turks massacred "between 1821-1922" and 1 million Armenians massacred (not simply deported) in 1915 alone is a big proportional difference, as a matter of fact. --92slim (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this entire section should be deleted as off-topic. The OP created it as a substitute for his/her inability to place the Systematic Bias tag in the article, and as a substitute to placing valid justifications for that tag. This already over-extended talk page is not a suitable forum for other articles / other subjects discussions, and the OP has read the advice given so there is no reason to keep it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not bothered one way or the other. Loads of space on the servers and it is not emitting CO₂... well the recording of it anyway, though I can imagine the creation of it might well have been accompanied by copious venting of the stuff. c1cada (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tittle suggestion: Why this is considered as Genocide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Ethnic_cleansing_vs._genocide

According to wikipedia, this should be considered as Ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

--88.252.211.58 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP. A warm welcome to Armenian Genocide from the little consenters also editing here. Genocide is a precisely defined term in international law you can read about here. The essential distinction between ethic cleansing and genocide is explained in the second link you provide. In this case the deportation orders of 1915-1916 and the massacres that ensued during the marches are plainly genocide, while the subsequent massacres in later years after the end of World War I were at the very least genocidal in character since a continuity in both policy and in parties to the massacres can be demonstrated. c1cada (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Two words: Raphael Lemkin. And please, this question has been asked a gazillion times already; remember, this is NOT a forum. --92slim (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin did not provide the legal definition of "genocide", and now that we have moved away from WP:EDITCONSENSUS inevitably the Talk Page will become more discursive. What do the big consenters incidentally think of my three proposals? I was really hoping you would take over the post World War I massacres section, showing me how as it were. What do you think of my modest effort so far? I'm sure there's loads of stuff you know to better it.c1cada (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this section should have been erased as off-topic. Wikipedia is not a source, so the anon's suggestion had no validity. A short reply like that, if erasure was not the answer, is all that was needed to be said, not three separate posts. This talk page with its archives is already impossibly long so I think editors need to take more responsibility for controlling what gets onto it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We chirp. I think if the Talk page get a lot of these sort of things, then we're justified in dealing with them brusquely. So far, I'm content to answer them as they come. Wikipedia is currently in crisis so some say, no longer the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, because amongst other things we are not welcoming enough. Apparently the rot set in about eight years ago. Just doing my bit for the new order. But right, Tiptoe, if it irritates you, tell me straight out in no uncertain terms. I can handle it, honest. No shrinking violet me. Thanks for your post on irredentism. c1cada (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just got round to reading that article on Wikipedia. Maybe one day maybe I'll see an article written by someone who actually knows Wikipedia. "The loose collective running the site today" - come on, the reality is the exact opposite! A system where only administrators propose and appoint administrators produces a very close-knit and hive-minded cult of administrators, not a loose collective. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you kill the people who are victims of ethnic cleansing, it is genocide. Of course ethnic cleansing can also mean that you force people to leave a particular area. --Vitzque (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Errors of fact in the lede

Two significant errors of fact in the lede remain. An attempt by me [1] to correct those in a non-contentious way, after elaborate discussion in the section Proposal: Modifications to the lede, was not only reverted by editors but referred to Arbcom as evidence of non-consensus disruptive editing.

The two errors of fact are as follows:

1. Error of fact 1: " ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." That is an error because all standard histories of the Armenian Genocide treat also the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) of Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire in territory within the present-day Republic of Armenia.

1. Error of fact 2: "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ..." That is an error because the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) that occurred after World War I has yet to be characterised by historians as a genocide in its strict legal sense. It is moreover poor copy because it implies the mass murder was also implemented in two phases, but it was not.

What do editors here propose to do about these, other than reverting all my attempts to correct them?

?The diff you gave does not attempt to correct the "historic homeland" thing. Your error of fact 2 is in error: the late WW1 and post WW1 killings have been termed genocide by sources, and have not been separated from the 1915 killings as a distinct event. I think it is the "two phases" thing that is false. Don't know what Armenian vested interest or pov that serves, but surely there will be one. I've taken a tiny part of your diff changes and added them with a small variation. Will see if they remain. Plus I've changed the wording for the deportation of intellectuals bit - many survived so it is not appropriate to state they were killed or tortured and thus suggest all of them died or were tortured. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, apologies about the diff. I meant my edit addressing reverting editor's concerns: "Accomodating various reverting editors' points. Editors, please try in turn to accommodate the existing copy when you make edits...". I'll clarify why I thought that non-contentious in a moment.

Regarding "genocide" my position is that we should reserve the term for the crime of genocide as defined in international law. Recognising the "Armenian Genocide" is not the same thing as recognising the fact of genocide, as a glance at United States resolutions confirm. What we need most of all for "genocide" is the opinion of recognised historians. I'm hopeful that the European Court of Human Rights will clarify as well in the Perinçek v. Switzerland appeal. In my edits I have always left open the question that the later post war massacres of Russian Armenians and refugees were a genocide and from the outset followed Dadrian and Akcam in describing these attacks as genocidal in intent.

I looked at both your edits. I thought them acute and don't dispute them. I think it's unlikely that you and I will ever come to blows over this article. I was especially glad to see that you returned my "0.8 to 1.5 million". I've noted on this page that my opponents here are best not advised to wikilawyer me or find fault with my vocab. On my maths they stand not one iota of a chance ... (the wikilink being deeper than time travel as it happens).

_{At the risk of overextending my welcome (such as it ever was), I'll give the rationale for my my edit. I started with "The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of Armenians in its territory and surrounding regions during 1915-1923.[10] The total number of people killed in the genocide has been estimated at between 800,000 to 1.5 million. The initial genocide, carried out during World War I, targeted the Ottoman Empire's minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. Later genocidal attacks targeted Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Armenia.". There I first repeated the Armenian Genocide Museum's (AGM) definition, but retained the original "systematic" of the article, which is not in the AGM's definition. I introduced "genocide" immediately (as it had not been subsequently) because it not disputed that genocide was committed during the period and that is the commonly understood subtsnace of "Armenian Genocide". I retained "killed" and "800,000" in place of "perished" (unquestionably the right word as ordinary readers of English will know) and "0.8" I originally supplied, because I'm not a diva who can be big-arsed (and god knows some are totally huge) about absolutely everything. The rest was simply a statement of matter of fact about the events, correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey. A reverting editor was quite wrong to say that "genocidal attacks" was my OR. It explicitly repeats what Dadrian and Akcam commit to. Moreover it does not preclude characterising the attacks as a genocide later in the article (and in the Massacres after World War I section I started, twice reverted with no input of substance by an editor, I gave due weight from the outset to those historians' views). Finally, concerning my edit, I removed "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I ..." at the start of the second paragraph because that was no longer needed, and substituted "The genocide commencing 1915 was planned ..." where the "1915" so impatiently deleted by another editor, was included precisely so not to imply that the later post war massacres were not also a genocide, as an ordinary reader of English must needs infer as those massacres were of the conventional visceral sort and not implemented in two phases.}

That edit was a carefully considered edit addressing other editors' concerns that I genuinely thought was non-contentious. It was immediately reverted by an editor who took me to an Arbcom procedure with the request that I be banned, so intrusive and non-constructive thought they it.

I don't expect to have much time over the summer editing Wikipedia. But unless I am actually banned, I do propose to continue editing here. Meanwhile I shall content myself with standardising the citations until such time I hear from Arbcom as to whether they intend to chop me or not. I gather their proceedings are even more protracted than ECHR's. c1cada (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@c1cada: 'correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey'. Who said 'solely'? Looks like a straw man. Diranakir (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Diranakir: I don't see how I can be erecting a straw man over solely when the current definition defines the Armenian genocide as " ... the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." It's slightly wordier than the original "the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey", but in either case it's perfectly clear to an ordinary reader of English that it's defining the Genocide as taking place solely in territory occupied by the present-day Republic of Turkey. That's not true, and even were it true I question its relevance; strictly speaking about as relevant as saying the Holocaust took place in territory occupied by the present-day European Union. Kudos of course for knowing the "straw man" fallacy - can't say I ever did before coming to Wikipedia.

Put another way, what would your beef be with my attempt to correct it in the edit you reverted, where I inserted "and surrounding regions" per the Armenian Genocide Museum and explicitly referenced the Republic of Armenia in the same way as the Republic of Turkey was?

You reverted my entire edit, if I remember correctly, on my use of the word "killings". However, before I came to edit at this article, its sole reference to the Russian Armenians and refugees experience I wished to record in more detail was the following:

Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence.

Would you be ok then with my using "mass killings" when I come to WP:BOLD a new effort at correcting the lede. While you are it, I should much like to hear your comment on an editor's effort to implicate the Republic of Turkey in the Genocide. What's your take on that, please? c1cada (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If you simply want to simply replace words "territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey" by "Turkey" in lede ("Ottoman Empire" is not necessarily appropriate as a historical state), that's fine. No one will probably object this. If you want to write about something, which strictly speaking does not fall under definition of Armenian genocide, that's fine too. Create another page (see this comment) and briefly reflect it in the body of this page. After that, you can try to slightly fix lede - just to make it consistent with body of page. You should realize that making changes on pages like that one is very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw your response at the Arbcom process. I didn't respond, not because I didn't think it worth responding to, but because I'm not terribly interested in the Arbcom proceedings. Of course I'll abide by whatever decision they eventually make (obviously will have to if I'm chopped), but the norms of the community is not something that very fascinates me. For example another editor's contribution there was simply gobbledygook to me and I'm not the slightest bit curious as to what they might portend. I note however that you contributed nothing to my proposals here and I reject your slight that I'm pro-Turkey POV-pushing. As I mentioned in my submission there , by far the best lede for this article is the French one. An off the cuff translation follows:

The "Armenian Genocide" was a genocide perpetrated from April 1915 to July 1916 (considered today to have continued until 1923) [Note 1], in which two thirds of the Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey perished due to deportations, famine, and large-scale massacres. It was planned and executed by the party in power at the time, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), better known as the "Young Turks", consisting in particular of the truimvirate of officers Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Jemal Pasha, head of the Ottoman Empire then engaged in World War I as allies of the Central Powers. Considered as the first genocide of the twentieth century, it claimed the lives of about one million two hundred thousand Armenians from Anatolia and Armenia. [Note 2]

The notes are respectively:

Note 1: Recent historiography considers the genocide ended with the signing of the Lausanne Treaty of July 23, 1923, due to the massacres that took place over the period 1920-1923. Similarly, estimates of the number of victims often cover the period 1915-1923.

Note 2: This figure is generally accepted by historians of the period; but the record of the massacres and deportations of Armenians is not, however, unanimiously accepted. Anahide Ter Minassian wrote: "If no one now disputes the lethality of forced displacement or the massacres that accompanied them, the controversy has been ever since 1919 the number of victims (1,500,000 according to the Armenians, 600,000 to 800,000 according to the Turks)... [and then further quoting and citing]"

An editor might care to notice "perishes". Other good features of this lede I shall happily expand on to interested editors, but not to this editor who testified at Arbcom that I am a pro-Turkey POV-pusher. c1cada (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not only me who found these your edits problematic [2] (edit summary). My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@c1cada: So you have no problem with 'Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey' as a geographic descriptor despite its leaving out the attacks on the Russian Armenians? Diranakir (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert to stable version

This article has gone through a lot this past month. A lot of information has been added without consensus mostly by a user who is now topic banned. The harvard refs done by this user is also a disaster. They're not even properly done. I propose reverting this article to a more stable version. If there is any information we'd like to add, it should be done in a constructive and consensus building manner. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You should specify what version you want to revert to so other editors can do a comparison. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he means his own version of course! And since he is useing the word "disaster", it is worth remembering that the version he thinks preferable was such a disaster that it failed the GA appraisal at the first hurdle. I oppose any attempt by EtienneDolet to indulge in blind reverting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The version I propose to revert to is this: [3]. I don't have my own version of this article. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. On the other hand, the version we currently see is one that was heavily edited by a disruptive user who was recently topic banned under AA2. The harvard refs are a disaster. They don't include page numbers and they're not properly sorted. Huge chunks of information were added without consensus. Above all, the user was banned for doing all of this. If there is any information that should be added, it should be done so in a constructive matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By "your version" I mean the one you presented for GA assessment. It is not a valid editing act to make a blanket revert ([[4]]) of content just because that content was placed there by an editor subsequently blocked. Refs can be fixed. You need to state the specific content you would like to be removed and explain your reasons why you want it removed. Many of the differences are tiny one word changes that seem legitimate (I don't know who made them), some other bigger changes seem valid. For example, why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section? The Fatwa content also seems relevant, and again I don't know who added it. You know what I think of the "consensus" and what it has done to this article. I do not believe that this "consensus" you talk about is required to add properly referenced valid new content or to make legitimate changes to existing content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This version is not a GA quality article either. In fact, it's much worse. It has been heavily edited by a topic banned user who was banned for causing even more problems to this article than before. If there are any sections we should keep, it can be easily discussed here at the TP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, so we only need to discuss things we should keep, as opposed to discussing things we should delete? I doubt you mean that! My discussion input to start is that we should keep everything added between those two diffs unless proper arguments are presented for the removal of specific content. Please explain why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section, and so on? You cannot remove content just because it was put there by a topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph was unilaterally imposed by a disruptive editor who did not believe the genocide continued after 1916. The user has, for example, employed a variety of POV terms to that effect (i.e. 'Genocidal' as in genocide-like rather than 'genocide'). Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This mess of an article needs better structuring, a chronological structuring is appropriate, so I support the retention of the "Massacres after World War I" section. The religious component of the massacres needs to be addressed, so I support the retention of the Fatwa content (it is described as a declaration of Jihad, a Holy War, in other sources). Many of the other differences are correcting typos or just tiny changes in words that seem to mostly be changes for the better - so I support those being retained too. So I oppose any revert back to any earlier version. You have not presented any argument for the removal of content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that there must be a reversion made to reinstate a stable version. This current version, as I have already said, has many POV and referencing issues. I suggest reverting it to this version: [5]. I would also like to see some more community input on this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:c1cada was blocked so his disruptive edits can be safely reverted. --92slim (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

EtienneDolet. I made my position quite clear. I oppose any blanket revert. Despite that, you have gone ahead and broke basic Wikipedia rules by making exactly such blanket revert [6]. If opposition to such a proposed editing act has been expressed, you CANNOT mass delete content for no other reason than because it was put there by a subsequently topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he can. --92slim (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source Wikipedians may not know

International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, see [7]. This journal published research papers and reviews about the Armenian Genocide and genocide studies in general. I think that Wikipedians should utilize this prestigious source to make the article better reflect the current research trend - also to make the article closer to the truth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

An editor, 92Slim, has repeatedly attempted to insert unreferenced and unsuitable content into the article. [8], [9], [10], [11]. In these edits he has repeatedly inserted into the lead the claim that all of the 24 April arrested notables were killed, in some edits he claims that they were all killed on 24 April. In other edits he claims that they were all executed at a later date. These claims are contrary to the referenced content on Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. In other edits he has inserted an unreferenced claim that some were saved by "Turkish intellectuals" (he has been advised by another editor that such content, even if it were to be referenced, is unsuitable for the lead [12]). He has also been inserting unreferenced content that weasely implies that these arrests were a Turkish response to the Allied landings at Gallipoli because the dates coincided. Of course the dates do not coincide, and there is no reference for content stating that they did, or content stating or implying that there was any direct connection between the two events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done any of those things. The intellectuals were mainly executed per the sources (never mentioned 24th of April at all) and that some Turkish intellectuals (eg. Halide Edip) saved some of them. I smell butthurt. --92slim (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't done any of those things" - so I suppose the cited diffs are made up and I hacked into Wikipedia's servers! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I explained what I have done above. --92slim (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And the same unconstructive edits (i.e., adding blatant falsehoods) have been reinserted by Étienne Dolet. Reinserted without any justification given either here or in his typically vapid edit summaries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Read above, rinse and repeat. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have again deleted your denialist lies. Stop inserting propaganda - there is no connection between the Gallipoli landings and the decision to deport Armenian leaders in Constantinople, and you are bringing no sources that state there was. You also must be a particularly dim person to be incapable of realizing that April 24th is not the same date as April 25th. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)