Talk:Hemshin people/Archive 1

Comments

Turkish politicians

I will put back the photographs of three notable Hamshenis of Turkish politics in the info-box, as it goes for most info-boxes. I see that there has been source problems. I will shift the photograph of the woman to some other place in the article. Also, please do not erase talk page stuff, and I am not sure that the purpose of a wikipedia article's talk page is to direct readers to yahoo discussion groups. I had put a mention of this article in the page for the town of Hemşin, the world may not look the same way from there. Cretanforever.

I say leave the infobox as it is. I think it's just better to allow the photograph of the Hamsheni woman to remain in the article as she best represents the ethnic group. To me, if we just have Turkish politicians in the infobox who are partly Hamsheni or of Hamsheni descent then we really aren't really representing that ethnic group accurately. Besides, the articles for the Turkmen and the Uyghurs only have one image representative of their ethnic groups. Why can't this be the same with the Hamshenis?

I removed the comment regarding the ASALA above because it was vandalism. The user (153.2.247.30) who placed it on this talk page has been cited earlier for making POV statements in other articles such as in the University of Texas at Austin article. I removed the statement on the Hamsheni Yahoo group as well. I don't believe that advertising of any kind is allowed on Wikipedia, but I checked the background of the anon who wrote that piece as well. This user (193.255.230.227) was also cited for vandalism. -- Clevelander 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We can remove Mesut Yılmaz, whose Hamsheni descent is rather distant and very partial anyway, we can the put the lady in the middle of the infobox, and Ahmet Tevfik İleri and Murat Karayalçın to the right and left. Especially İleri is a favorite son who made it to the top for most Hamshenis, and he has rendered great services to Turkey. I have nothing against the folk dress and the pastoral landscape but the reader should not be left under the impression that that's what Hamshenis are all about. They live in a society and many are urbanized. I also have photographs of bagpipe (tulum) players that I will add and I will develop Hemşin page with a stress on the fantastic landscape. Regards. Cretanforever

Okay, I'll agree to that. I shall re-add Karayalçın and İleri immediately. -- Clevelander 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamshenis in Russia

"Recently, most of the Muslim Hamshenis in Russia who were forcibly moved by Stalin to Kazakhstan, wish to have their own cultural organization in the Krasnodar Krai in Russia. The action was continously denied by Krasnodar officials and has prompted an organization of their co-ethnics and co-religionists in Armenia itself to appeal to the Russian ambassador in Yerevan to get Moscow to intervene in this case and overrule the regional officials who seem intent on preventing Hamshenis from gaining official registration." Does this mean that there are Muslim Hamshenis "in Armenia itself"? Citation needed. Behemoth 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that sounds a bit off, but I sourced it from this article: http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051205Russia.shtml. Perhaps we should just remove it for ambiguity (though I can't help but think that this has something to do more with the Christian Hamshenis than the Muslims). -- Clevelander 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there is no ambiguity. But the event is not that Muslim Hamshenis "wish to have their own cultural organization". This is; they are not considered as Kazakh citizens by Kazakhstani authorities nor given Russian citizenship by Russian authorities and they try to register in the Krasnodar Krai and want a permanent residence there. However, Russian authorities simply don't want them and approach them like as they do with other "Meskhetians". Russia is currently just waiting for the US to take them to America, as it was agreed with the International Organization of Migration in 2004. The sole ambiguity is that the report refers to people from Armenia as the "co-religionists" of Muslim Hamshenis. I think this could be removed and the paragraph re-added to the text. Behemoth 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am of Hamsheni origin (Northern, Christian). I have corrected the "Culture" section where it was mistakenly stated that hamshentsis are primarely fishermen. No, Northern Hamshentsi's primarely grow tobacco, all kind of citrus trees, silkworms, tea and corn as well as other types of agriculture. Some, maybe, are fishermen, but you don't see firshermens nets and boats all around like you would in other areas. Now, I suspect there are some fishermen out there but this is not what they northern hamshenis primarely do. ( Just curious, what was the source for that info?.. )

I think Russian spelling instead of "Кхэмшыл" should be "Хемшил". That's more correct.

Also, the word "Homshetsma", used in this article, I first heard from Dr. Bert Vaux.

I think it came from one of his informants from an Eastern Hemşinli group. Our Northern Hamshentsis (Christian), as far as I know, do not use that particular word. Most of the time we call our language simply "hayeren = Armenian". However, the way we prononce that word is different from what it would sound from a regular Armenian speaker. We use the sound "ä" a great deal in our speach, so it would sound like "häyren". Often you hear "mir lizu = our language", and even rarely "h'mshen(tsu) lizu". avetik

Hamsheni international scientific convention in Sochi

What was the source of information about "Sevan" cultural center's active support for Hamshen conference?.. According to the editor of Yerkramas newspaper, "Sevan" leadership actually boycotted that event, and it was organized and sponsored by "Dashnaktsutyun":

Просто в статье мне резанула слух одна строчка о том, 
что сочинский "Севан" выступил спонсором конференции. 
Это ложь. "Севан" в лице своего руководства конференцию 
саботировал. А что касается организации и финансирования 
конференции, то это сделала партия Дашнакцутюн. 

Avetik 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See here: http://www.yerkir.am/eng/?sub=news_arm&day=18&month=10&year=2005&id=19852 -- Clevelander 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, but there is nothing about "Sevan", that was the objection. Avetik 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I meant this link: http://president.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=14879&date=2005-10-04 -- Clevelander 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clevelander,

Ok, notice all these will be future tense sentences in the article you citing, and the date it came out?.. This was what Yerkramas announced prior to the event. However, according to the same source, as of yesterday, the Yerkramas newspaper confirmed that "Sevan" cultural center not only did not participate, but actually sabotaged this event, and instead it was organized and funded by Dashnaktsutyun party (see my note earlier). Let's not be negligible here: if it caught somebody's eye, it may be an important matter. If Encyclopaedia mentiones one sponsor, but for whatever reason does not mention another major sponsor, a reader may suspect a bias, which I don't think was your intention. I'm just trying to apply some common cense here.

Kind regards,

Avetik 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a source that confirms this? -- Clevelander 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You can write Yerkramas publisher and editor Mr. Tigran Tavadyan ( info at yerkramas dot org ) to confirm this information. After reading Wikipedia article, he personally emailed me on this topic asking to please correct the information... Avetik 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think this version should work [see page]. -- Clevelander 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Avetik 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WPTR tag

By putting the WPTR tag, i was not disputing that they were armenians, I know that. but I put the WPTR tag since it is a turkey related topic, feel free to add WP Russia and WP Georgia tags as well..:)) Kars is also in WP Armenia, we have to be inclusionist.. :) Baristarim 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now. That's fine. -- Clevelander 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Small question

I really hate to be a prick by asking this, but it would be really nice if somebody put some sources that attest to Hamsheni origins of Mesut Yılmaz and Murat Karayalçın.. I put a fact tag a month ago, and while I understand that this is not a very busy article and therefore provokes much less interest, it would be nice if somebody actually tried to dig up some sources on this. The thing is I have no idea if they are Hamshenis or not, they could be or they could not be.. Frankly, I don't care either way. But remember that these are living people, and as such fall under the same rules governing living person Bios, which state that claims about living people have to be substantiated thoroughly.. I will let the fact tags stay for a long while again, till someone comes up with some info on this.. cheers Baristarim 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Gomno (Yaltkaya) and Çinçiva (Şenyuva) are Hamsheni villages. But you still put factual accuracy tags. Of course, it will not be possible to convince you in any way because your motives are obvious. Without editing a line and probably not even caring to have knowledge on the subject, you are trying to minimise the content of the article and mistify its significance. Behemoth 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF. The thing is Murat Karayalcin article was created just recently by me. It exists now, and you can add those info there with sources. Improve first, then attack, or better, never attack. deniz^T_C

Listen, I read that Hurriyet interview from top to bottom, and to infer from that article that he is a "Hamsheni" (the subject of this article - the ethnic group) really takes some skill. He is from the town "Hamsen" - there is nothing in the article which suggests that he belongs to that ethnic group - that is a vio of WP:OR. The guy is explaining how he was a Grey Wolf when he was young, and from this you are deducing that he is a Hamsheni (the ethnic group)? That's one hell of a stretch. Again, see WP:BLP - bios of living people have to be sourced rock-solid. Are you suggesting that everyone from a city have to be of the same ethnic background? That's also a big stretch. Please do not add back that Hurriyet interview as a source for that claim. Btw, please watch for civility Benemoth - what are "my motives"?

I have been really patient with this article, and will stay for a while as well. So before I put another POV tag, I would like to point out that a fundamental analysis is missing from the groups section: the primary self-identification of these people today. The section (and some of the article) is definitely talking as if there is a huge Hamsheni movement or something, and is twisting a lot of words (like how newer generations and leftist consider themselves as Armenians). Most of these people wouldn't define themselves as Armenians primo today, and the degree of assimilation to the mainstream Turkish society is also curiously missing. I am not putting the tag just yet, but if that issue is not addressed I will, just a note before anyone accuses me of having "motives" :) Baristarim 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go:

Hemşinliler, tarihte farklı toplumsal kökenden gelmiş olsa bile toplumlar birbirini karşılıklı etkilemektedir. Türk toplumu ile Hemşinliler arasında etnik ya da dinsel bir sorun yoktur. Hemşinli olup ülkemizde devlet yönetimine gelmiş eski başbakanlarımızdan Mesut Yılmaz ve eski Dışişleri bakanlarımızdan SHP Genel Başkanı Murat Karayalçın buna en iyi örnektir. Bir çoğunuz Mesut Yılmaz veMurat Karayalçın’ın Hemşinli olduklarını belki bu sayfaları okuyunca öğrenmiş oldunuz. [1]

Khoikhoi 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there are many web-sites out there who claim a lot of things. The text you quoted itself says "I am sure that you have learned that Yilmaz and Karayalcin are Hemsinli reading these pages" (the last sentence). Says a lot, doesn't it? There are also websites out there who claim that even Hatay is a part of Kurdistan and all. In any case, the article says "from Hemsin", it is not clear if it is the ethnic group. Most importantly, since these concern the bios of living people, we cannot simply take the claim of a minor web-site and present it as rock-solid fact. In the Hurriyet interview, he is talking about how he was a Grey Wolf when he was younger, don't you think we need a bit stronger sources than karacaahmet.com? He never mentioned anything to that effect, it is pure speculation, both for Yilmaz and Karayalcin, I can find no mention of this in any serious sources, let alone sources part of a "wide-concensus" - and let me remind that Yilmaz was a PM and Karayalcin was a deputy PM and mayor of Ankara: There is tons of documentation about them, and none of them mention this.

I still stand behind my second comment about the info missing from the groups section: there is no info about any assimilation rates, and I wonder if we are not simply presenting the thesis of only one author at this stage. What is also missing is a other sources about the presence of a seperate ethno-social seperate ethnic identity. Lacking these, the article has some serious POV problems since it is simply publishing the thesis of only one unknown author. Baristarim 11:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Barış, can you please translate the exact words from the karacaahmet.com source? Since he is mentioned in a section called, "HEMŞİNLİLER", I assume the article says he is Hamsheni. (Hemşinli (=Hamshenis) olup ülkemizde devlet yönetimine gelmiş eski başbakanlarımızdan Mesut Yılmaz ve eski Dışişleri bakanlarımızdan SHP Genel Başkanı Murat Karayalçın buna en iyi örnektir. Bir çoğunuz Mesut Yılmaz veMurat Karayalçın’ın Hemşinli olduklarını belki bu sayfaları okuyunca öğrenmiş oldunuz.) Unlike other sources prevented so far, this source meets WP:RS because it cites sources of its own, just like it should. I know your gut tells you he was Turkish, but saying, "since he was a Grey Wolf, he coudn't have been Hamsheni" constitutes original research. He could have been assimilated for all you know. As for your remark about the documentation, remember that the question of ethnicity in modern Turkey is a highly debated and difficult issue. It wouldn't make any sense to list Karayalçın in a section called "HEMŞİNLİLER" if he were an ethnic Turk. Khoikhoi 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish we had access to the source there, Erhan G. Ersoy's book, see this. I e-mailed them, they might send me the article. deniz^T_C 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of Hamshen in Turkey

According to an Armenian researcher there are 100000 Hamshen in Turkey and not 400000. Here is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3459 It makes no sense to exagerate the number of Hamshen in Turkey. Orrin_73

You need a reliable source. Nareklm 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a link in hyeforum, I assume you did not read it. Orrin_73

I did read it its a forum those don't count. Nareklm 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

someone had posted a link in the forum to a study! It is not that someone in the forum said! The claim that there are 400000 hemshin in Turkey is absurd.Orrin_73

Okay man! anyone can change numbers on forums! when you get the link presenting the numbers than put it! Nareklm 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

400,000 is supposedly the total number of Hamshenians, more than 100,000 being from a Russian city. deniz^T_C 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision Proposed

The article misses an objective treatment of the topic of Hemşin and its history.

It touches to the facts that the majority of people of Hemşin identify themselves as ethnic Turks and they speak Turkish only (except for Hopa-Hemşin people). I believe that the authors would also agree with the fact that the people of Hemşin proper and (except for language) Hopa-Hemşin culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor, within some local and natural diversification.

However, the article poses a very biased approach by presenting these people unquestionably to be of another origin (race?) and culture, against their own perceptions. This biased and in my view misplaced attempt is supposedly justified based on incomplete studies of the culture, language and history by some researchers of a certain school of thought.

The one sided presentation of the subject throughout the article is against the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This makes it very difficult to revise the article on a sentence-word basis and requires a major revision. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, I first want to discuss possible changes to the article in this talk page with the contributors of the article to reach a consensus, and then proceed to edit the article to come up with a Wikipedia policy compliant presentation.

Here below some basic statements:

1) Even though there has been a limited number of old texts (partially conflicting) regarding the Hemşin area, the modern day historians and linguists have only recently focused on the Hemşin region in terms of its civilization history and linguistic background.

2) To date, there has not been any conclusive consensus on the ethnical(?), cultural and linguistic roots of the "Hemşinli" leading to different schools of opinion.

3) In this article the term Hemşinli does not only refer to the present day people of Hemşin proper and Hopa-Hemşin but also to various peoples who once in history had connection to the Hemşin area. Naturally, there are differences to varying degrees in cultural, folkloric, religious and linguistic traits of these people. Consequently, the article shoud avoid giving the impression that any information or inference related to a specific group of "Hemşinli" is also necessarily valid for all other groups of the "Hemşinli" as well.

Before proceeding any further with the detailed discussion and editing, I want to first make sure that we all have a consensus with the above points. Such a consensus would enable us to have a healthy and productive discussion on the article. Omer182 12:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the contributers so far has responded to my request for discussion, as outlined above (almost 3 weeks ago). Does this mean that they agree with the above 3 points? This is a reminder that I am still waiting for feedback from the contributers regarding the above. Omer182 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you - the entry as it stands does somewhat disenfranchise the Hemşinli by giving an over emphasis to the other groups, and to the probable Armenian origins, and to what others say the Hemshinli are rather than what the Hemshinli say they are. But I worry that you might have Turkish nationalistic motives behind your desire to revise the entry. BTW it is not really correct to say that they "culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor". Certainly they see themselves as Turkish citizens, but they recognise that they are different from their neighbours. And none of their neighbours are actually ethnically Turkish (they are mostly Laz, or Kurd, or Pontic Greek). Meowy 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, I am glad that you agree with my observation that the presentation is one-sided. You don't seem to have a specific objection to any of the three points I made above, which implies we are on the same page! With regard to the issue of "cultural association", I want to mention that to the best of my knowledge, the relation of the Hemşinli to the rest of the Turkish population is much deeper than what could be described as merely a common citizenship. This obviously does not exclude local differences and a feeling of a "Hemşinli" identity. It is possible to observe such localized identities in almost all counties in Turkey, and as far as I can judge all over in the world. Even in the much younger nation of the US, basically comprised of immigrants, such can be observed. Further details will be developed in the course of editing. The aim here is to produce a balanced article in accordance with Wikipedia rules which enforce texts free of racist or nationalistic distortion.Omer182 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the discussion above, I propose to start editing the article with the first paragraph, as clarified below. I suggest that the first paragraph focus only on the literal meaning of the term which forms the title of the article, and postpone the presentation of details to the relevant sections.

The proposed form for the first paragraph is as follows:

"The term "Hamsheni" has recently been used (in non-turkish sources) to refer to a number of diverse groups of people who, in the past history or present, have in one way or another been affiliated with the Hemşin area. In historical documents this term is absent. Depending on the pronunciation and language used other designations like Hemshinlis or Khemshils; Armenian : Համշենի ; Russian : Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi ( სუმეხი ) [2] ) are used as well. The turkish equivalent of the word is "Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er). This is the designation used by people who still live in Hemşin or have ongoing affiliation thereto through family ties." Omer182 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of the subject matter, particularly with regards to the ethnic group of the early 20th century, the people from the town carrying that name and, more importantly, the existence of a seperate ethno-social identity for either of the groups mentioned. I was trying to explain the same thing earlier, but you put it into words much better than I did when you said ""Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er)" Baristarim 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose to resume editing the article with the "Origins" section. I propose to discuss the history in this section and consequently rename the section as "History". I suggest that the issues of culture (religion, language and changes therein) be addressed in the subsequent section ("Groups").

History Section

My proposal for the "History" section is as follows:

"The foundation of Hemşin is often related to a migration which is claimed to have taken place in the 7th to 9th centuries from Armenia to the Hemşin region. Short passages from the medieval Armenian chronics Ghewond, Asoghik and John Mamikonian form the primary references for the migration, in spite of the fact that there are fundamental contradictions between them with regard to the time and accompanying circumstances of the migration. Neither of the chronics associate the Hemşin area clearly with the migration. The common element is the mention of a Prince Hamam who was either a leader of the migration or a descendant of the migrants.

Regardless of the ambiguities surrounding this migration, it is generally accepted that the migrants confessed to the Christian faith and belonged to the Armenian Church. There ara no specific indications with regard to the language and/or other ethnical characteristics of the migrants. Some Turkish historians deduce that those were Turks; while many other historians deduce that those were Armenians.

Even if the migrants have really settled down in Hemşin, whether and by whom Hemşin was populated prior to that migration and what has happened to them is not clear. There are views which suggest that the area was uninhabited due to its difficult terrain whereas opposing approaches argue that the area was already influenced by earlier movements of people which possibly include ancient anatolian people as well as caucasian and turkic tribes.

Furthermore there are contradicting views with regard to whether Hemşin remained isolated and inaccessible or whether it was open to further migrations after in the beginning of the second millennium. This is also due to the fact that there are no historical documents clearly proving either thesis.In spite of the lack of clear documentation it is deduced that Hemşin has been governed by local Lords under the umbrella of the greater regional powers changing by the time namely the Bagratid Armenian kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, its successor the Empire of Trebizond, the Georgian Kingdom , the Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu Turkmen Confederations until it was annexed in the 15 the century by the Ottoman Empire which collapsed as a result of the WW1 and gave birth to the Republic of Turkey." Omer182 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear that the Hamshenis are Armenians, regardless of the language they speak (whether it be Armenian, Turkish, Russian, or Georgian). I'm reverting this article back to an earlier version. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aivazovsky; your recent revert of the article, without acknowledging the need to dicuss it first,is in direct conflict with the Wikipedia rules and policies. Wikipedia strictly advocates (and enforces as needed) that major revisions should first be discussed in the talk page of the article (Wikipedia:How to edit a page) before the changes are actually implemented in the article itself. More specifically, it has been emphasized that "Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly" and that one should " not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute and be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view" (Wikipedia:Revert).

The changes I have inflicted in the recent months have been implemented following the wikipedia complient procedures as outlined above. The changes proposed have first been posted on the talk page for feedback, and after a reasonable amount of time, in observance of no objections, been implemented. The motivation for the changes, as already discussed above (and being unchallenged by you or any others) is the need to create a wikipedia NPOV policy compliant (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) article.

In light of the above, I post the article as it was when you unruly interfered, and kindly invite you to discuss your opinions on the talk page first before engaing in major changes.Omer182 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, your recent revert of the article without discussing your proposals first,is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. It is dissapointing that you do this violation just after I remind the editors about the wikipedia edit policies. Please refer to the wikipedia references cited above and understand that you need to first discuss your reasons for major revisions before engaging in them. I now take the article to its earlier version as it was when you unruly interfered, and strongly encourage you to share your ideas with us first before implementing such changes.Omer182 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your effort is simply pointless for your edits are completely unsourced. What is the fuss about "New York-er" anyway? Behemoth (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Behemoth: The wikipedia rules are very clear; no revert without discussion. Your single sentence suggesting that the edits I have done are "pointless" and doing the revert based on this one sided approach, with no justification whatsoever, is not what is meant by the term "discussion".

Nevertheless, you might actually have a point in your reference to the sources for the article. I have not removed the references given in the article. You need to let me know what specifically in these edits you think needs additional sources.

Also, you seem to have difficulty in understanding the explanation of the word formation "hemsin-li" by way of an analogy to the structure of the word "new york-er". The suffix "-li" indicates origin in Turkish and produces adjectives from nouns. Thus "hemsinli" means "from Hemsin" in Turkish. This information is actually in the references of the article, but it might be a good idea to include the link (Turkish vocabulary) for a simpler explanation. Let me also say that I am somewhat surprised that a contributor who considers himself/herself knowledgable enough to compose an article about the people of Hemsin does not seem to be familiar with such a basic morphology rule in Turkish.Omer182 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Groups Section

My proposal for the "Groups" section is as follows:

"The Ottoman era has witnessed two major developments in the Hemsin region: Islamization and population movements. Islam faith has commenced to spread possibly prior to the Ottoman rule but it has become the general religion not before the end of the 16 th century. A number of population movements (both into and out of the region) are also known to have happened during the Ottoman era. Detailed information regarding the nature of these movements is missing. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that:

• there has been some emigration from Hemşin of Hemşinli belonging to the Armenian church to western counties of the eastern Blacksea region during the earlier centuries of the Ottoman rule,
• some emigration by Hemşinli of İslam faith to western Anatolia as well as to the Caucasus has taken place as a result of Turco-Russia wars and the accomponying hardships in the 19 th century,
• there have been some immigration into the area during the Ottoman rule.

The present community of Hemşinli thus surfacing is exclusively of Islam faith and Turkish speaking. This goes for the people living in Hemşin or people still maintaining links to the area although they live all over in Turkey.

A distinct community settled about 50 Kms east of Hemşin in villages around Hopa and Borçka call themselves also “Hemşinli” and they are often referred to as the “Hopa Hemşinli”. Professor of Linguistics Bert Vaux at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee refers to this group as the “Eastern Hamshenis”. Hemşinli and Hopa Hemşinli are separated not only by geography but also by language and some features of culture and are almost oblivious to one anothers existence. It is assumed that this community has its roots in a migration from Hemşin or have been settled in this area by the Ottoman authorities. The estimations for the timeframe of this settlement varies from early 16th to late 17 th century. There are controversial opinions also on whether this migration took place in one step or whether two waves of migration took place. The Hopa Hemşinli are exclusively of Islam faith as well. Whether they have immigrated from Hemşin proper as moslems or whether they have converted to Islam in their new homeland is another question with controversial answers.

The Hopa Hemşinli speak in addition to Turkish a language called “Hemşince” or (“Homşetsi” and/or Homshetsma in some sources). Recent studies claim that this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble.

In addition to these groups there are people speking Hemşince / Homshetsma in the countries of the former USSR whose ancestors have probably originated from Hemşin and/or Hopa Hemşin in course of the various population movements to the Caucasus.

Those among them who confess to the Islam have been deported from the Adjara area of Georgia at the Stalin era to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A considerable number of these deportees have moved to Krasnodar Krai since 1989, along with the Meskhetians.

Most of those of Christian faith currently live in Abkhazia and in the Krasnodar Krai region of Russia, in particular, the Sochi area, and Adygeya."Omer182 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Omer182 can you please provide sources for you claims. Because while you were adding your unsourced version you removed a big chunk of existing sources. You also removed an image, categories, templates and entire sections. Looking to hear from you soon, otherwise your hard work is going to be reverted. VartanM (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear VartanM, I have just seen your comment. I will respond to it immediately.Omer182 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear VartanM, thanks for the heads up! I now realize that the template that used to sit by the "groups" section ("Part of a series on Armenians") has been removed during my edit dated 14 January 2008. Besides this, I do not notice any deletions of "the existing sources, images, categories, templates and entire sections" caused by me. The minor changes in the categories are apparently made by Cydebot and user Good Olfactory (who seems to focus on categorization).

The removal of the template was not intentional. As you probably noticed I am editing the text step by step, one section at a time. I first put up the proposed changes on the discussion page before implementing them. So far I have edited the first paragraph, the history section (formerly called origins) and the groups section. During these revisions, none of the sources which were referred to in the sections edited (or in the article in general) were removed. In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source "The Kingdom of Armenia: A History" by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it.

If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify, and also put back the template that I unintentionally removed. I will probably propose changes for the template in due time as well.Omer182 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Omer182 means when he wrote "Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble" - but if he means that modern Armenian and the Hemshinli language are different then he is probably wrong. I recall a group of Armenians from Iran meeting a family of Turkish Hemshinli on Aghtamar Island, and they were able to commmunicate with each other. Meowy 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hemşince is a Turkish dialect with strong Armenian influences spoken by the Western Hamsheni group, but Omer's assertions that Homshetsi (an Armenian dialect spoken by the Eastern Hamshenis of eastern Turkey and the Northern in the former USSR) and Hemşince are the same thing are incorrect. In fact, most of his claims are unsubstantiated. I'm reverting this article back to its original version. The explanation behind Omer's edits appears to have less to do with scholarship and more to do with nationalism. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aiwazowsky:

I observe that you keep on "reverting" without discussion. Kindly stop this. I am reinstalling the version before your "revert". It does not mean anything when you say "most of his claims are unsubstantiated" unless you go ahead and tell specifically which claims/statements you think are ungrounded. I don't wish to enter into personal argumentation and will suffice with merely stating that your allegations regarding my input don't suit to my entries but to yours.

With regard to the particulars:

"Hemşince" is the term used by the Hopa Hemşinli to identify their language..i.e it is identical to the term "Homshetsi". As I had mentioned in the entry, this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. People of Hemşin proper (classified by some scholars as west Hemshin) on the other hand, speak Turkish ..It is true that there are a limited number of words borrowed from Armenian but the statement "with strong Armenian influences" is not substantiated.

Meowy:

My statement "Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble " is quoted from Bert Vaux-The Hemshin-ISBN10: 0-7007-0656-9, Chapter 10.Omer182 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I also reinstalled the accidentally deleted template raised in VartanM's comments on April 13th,2008.Omer182 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Answering the unsigned entry dated 13 May 2008 under the title discussion:

The edits I have inflicted have been through a wikipedia policy compliant procedure, in which I have first discussed the edit proposals (one by one). Refer to the first entries just below the title "Major revision proposed" to see "where it all started". Your allegations regarding the removal of pictures and references are simply incorrect. No reference or picture has been removed by me. If you have objections to my statements, you should specifically tell me which statement you think is unfounded (BTW I have stated this numerous times on this page already). I will undo your revert. Omer182 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the recent edits I now see that the unnamed user has reverted all edits I have done since Oct 9, 2007, which had commenced following my declaration and reasoning for a major revision on 11 august 2007. Al-Andalus and Macukali have then added back an image and a reference that were already removed prior to my edits (by other contributors). Basically they have collectively undone several months of edits by various contributors (in 2 days and with no discussion). I have no specific objections to the image or the reference that has been added back, but these minor edits should be isolated and should not be wholesale, and they should be discussed and mentioned. I have reverted the article back to its version on 11 May 2008. If any body wants to add references or images, please do so, as long as you discuss them here.Omer182 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry on 19 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the mentioned entry has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional response. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article.Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 21 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

I believe your approach would have been different if you actually read all the discussions on this page starting my first proposal for a revision (Aug. 11, 2007). I encourage you to read the discussion! My edits are not my opinions but are founded by literature. I again invite you to identify the specific statements in my edits that you think are not founded, or that you think are my opinions. This is the only way to have a meaningful discussion. If such a discussion would require to revise my entries, I would ofcourse do that... However, it is unacceptable to revert 9 months of edits and discussion just by presenting a biased view and trying hard to avoid any in depth discussion. Hence, I now revert the article to its earlier version, and kindly ask you to stop this kind of intervention which now tends to become vandalism.

PS. Regarding the picture, as I had told you earlier, I am not the one who removed it. Check the page history if you need to verify. In any case, I will reinsert it, as I don't have a particular objection to its inclusion. However bear in mind that the pic. was probably removed for some reason and if I were you I would check to see what it was.Omer182 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 26 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

no revert without discussion!... Furthermore not even any specific objections or questions or argumentation...I undo revert..Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article

Why is it "Hamshenis" rather than, for example "the Hemshin" or "Hemshinli"? Meowy 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hamshenis" (to my knowledge) is the most frequently used term designated for this Armenian subgroup. Of course they are also known as Hamshentsis, Hemshinlis, or Khemshils. "The Hemshin" would be more appropriate when referring to the region of Hemşin/Hamshen. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hemshin is the original area of settlement for the Hemshinli, and from that area all of the other related communites originated. For that reason Hemshin should be at the core of the content of this article. Nobody in Hemshin would nowadays call themselves "Hamshenis" - they would use "Hemshinli", so I think it would be more apropriate to title the article "Hemshinli", or, alternatively, "The Hemshin". Meowy 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What about those in Abkhazia and Russia? I believe they refer to themselves as Hamshen. Hakob (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree basically with Meowy….Maybe the article should be combined with the article Hemşin (not "the" Hemşin) which is about the geographical region. Info about the people of Hemşin may be given therein.

By the way…although the spelling of the words "Hemşin" and "Hamshen" are different, the pronunciations are more or less the same; the "a" in english sounds similar to "e" in Turkish and the "e " in Enlish is similar to "i" in Turkish. Thus, the two words are simply the different spellings of the same original word in two different languages.Omer182 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "the Hemshin" sounds better than "Hemshin", or "Hemşin", or "Hemşinli". Essentially, this article is about an ethnic group, and not a region (or a small settlement, like the "Hemşin" entry). The core of that ethnic group, and the bit that still survives in the lands of its origin, call themselves "Hemşinli" (as has been ponted out earlier) - but this is English Wikipedia, so I think "the Hemshin" should be used (all the other names could be linked to this page of course). Hamshenis / Hamshentsis, and similar varients, are the names used in Russia / Georgia / Abkhazia - but they are satellite communities; the name the original community calls itself (given that it is still a living community) should, I think, be the basis of deciding on the article's name. Meowy 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting omer because his edits consist of vandalism, removal of images and citations without consensus as well as original research in regard to the identity of the Hamshentsis. To answer both meowy and omer the armenian speaking christian hamshenis do refer to themselves as hamshentsi just like aremnians from lets say yerevan refer to themselves as yerevantsi and omer reinserts original research and misinformation as well as vandalizes images and other content. if he continues this, he will be reported.70.21.161.85 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But those calling themselves "Hamshentsi" don't actually live in Hemshin any more - they are the descendants of people who left Hemshin in the 19th century or earlier. Those that still live there call themselves "Hemshinli". I've got a copy of the recently published book "The Hemshin", by Hovann Simonian - it's a substantial book full of useful and densely packed information, and is probably the best work on the subject (except for the story of the origin of the Hemshin, which I think is just a folk myth, but which the author treats as fact). Haven't yet got round to reading it in depth, but when I do I'll think about what bits of information in it could be incorporated into this entry. Meowy 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved. An alternative to "The Hemshin" could be "Hemshin people." Perhaps this is also a good time to bring up the Category:Hamshenis people in Turkey. I think it should be removed or at least moved to "Hemshin" or "Hemshin people in Turkey." Also, the article's introduction does not make clear what the Hemshin communities actually call themselves. Hakob (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Meowy andHakob,I observe that there is a very meaningful discussion forming here regarding the title of the article. I will, in due time, join the discussion and contribute. I propose that, for the sake of clarity, this subsection is explicitly devoted to the title discussion. The flow of the title discussion has been interrupted by the unsigned entry which makes unfounded (and actually incorrect) allegations on my edits and has inflicted a revert. I will undo this misplaced revert. I will eloborate on the allegations made and my edits in the section above ("Major revision proposed"). I propose that the discussion related to the wording of the article be carried on there( under the main title "Major revision proposed"). Meowy, I hope you have noticed my latest response to your comment on May 3th, 2008 which I had placed at the bottom of the discussion "Major revision proposed".Omer182 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing but a bling revert and some other commments which have not answered above discussion and simply reverted in a vanalous manner

AND YES YOUR EDITS ROMVING IMAGES ARE CONSIDERED VANDALISM !

. Ans yes, Hamshentis, those that left to avoid genocide still retain their distinct identity as black sea armenians, so it is important and especiall o mention proper spelling hamsentsis rather than omers "turkification." one more revert and he will be reported to ANI67.49.45.88 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the above response has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional entry. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article. (This message is also posted at the bottom of the "major revision proposed section" for the sake of completeness. As mentioned before, this subsection is meant for title discussions only).Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy:

Coming back to the discussion on the title issue:

It seems difficult to relate all people related to Hemşin to a single ethnical group. In fact even the concept of ethnicity seems to be problematic for many. It is worth noting that the definition of etnicity as described in Wikipedia (Ethnic group) begins with a quote from Max Weber, "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether"

Another interesting quote from Ben Fowkes (Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World) is as follows:

"In his seminal work, Ethnic Origins of Nations, published in 1986, Smith listed six necessary ethnic attributes. These can be summarized as: a collective name; a common myth of descent; a shared history; a distinctive shared culture, comprising language and/or religion and/or institutions and/or other cultural features; an association with a specific territory; and finally a sense of ethnic solidarity, in other words a recognition of each other as members of the same ethnic group. Smith's view in 1986 was that all these features had to be present to establish the existence of ethnicity (Smith, 1986: 15). Later on he abandoned this insistence, arguing instead that: ‘the more [of these attributes] they have the more they approximate to the ideal type of an ethnie’ (Smith, 1991: 21). But the individual's own subjective consciousness of belonging to an ethnic community, in other words the sense of ethnic solidarity referred to above, is the most important feature of all"

Obviously this article is not about the concept of ethnicity itself. However, it is a fact that present people of/from Hemşin-proper, Hopa- Hemşin and those in Caucasions who identify themselves as Hemşinli/Hamsheni do not share the attributes listed above. Therefore it is not possible to consider them to be of the same ethnicity.

Hakob: I agree that "Hemshin people" would be a better title for this article. However, my reservation is that this term is not established in the relevant literature. Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are the same ethnicity. Obviously, the Islamic identity of those who remained in Turkey will have opened the possibility of there being intermarriage with other ethnic groups such as Laz, or ethnic Turks, and, similarly, those in Russian and Abkhazia who have a Christian identity will have mixed with Russians, Abhkaz, ethnic Georgians, Armenians, etc. And their physical distance will have resulted in there now being a lot of differences between the two groups. But that does not hide the fact that the two groups (or three groups ,if you count the Hopa Hemshinli as sepatate from the those in Rize) had the same origin - and all the sources seem to follow that line. Meowy 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly I am not too picky about the title, as long as the content is not biased.

Nevertheless, I still want to share with you my views on your above comment:

I think you would agree with me that as of today these three groups share nothing in common , except for an affliation to "Hemşin" as expressed in their self-identification. Actually, these groups are hardly aware of the existence of one another and certainly do not consider themselves to belong to same identity. These observations, as far as I know, are not contested by any sources or researchers, and there is an agreement on them. Thus, as of today, we can not consider these three groups to belong to the same ethnicity. Whether they belonged to the same ethnicity, at some distant past, and the characteristics of that ethnicity, is a matter of research intermingled with scholarly discussions regarding the definition of ethnicity. As of now, there is not a clear conclusion regarding these historical issues. We are not allowed to contribute to this ongoing research in a wikipedia article, and therefore can not draw our own conclusions. Thus, we can and should only try to reflect the present status of research in an "unbiased" manner. This is actually what I am trying to accomplish.Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A colony of snails in one valley is unlikely to be aware of a colony of snails in an adjoining valley - but their mere unawareness of each other does not mean they are no longer identical and no longer share the same origin. This article is not meant to reflect the limited, or inaccurate, or self-censored world view of a specific group; it is meant to reflect reality based on what legitimate sources have written about the subject. I think the article should be arranged to divide the separate groups into separate sections and subsections where that is appropriate (with the Firtina valley Hemshin in Turkey taking precedence for the reasons I explored earlier). However, everything should within the umbrella of a single article because I don't see a justification in artificially splitting it up. Meowy 02:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your assertion that "This article is not meant to reflect the limited, or inaccurate, or self-censored world view of a specific group; it is meant to reflect reality based on what legitimate sources have written about the subject". However, I can not follow your snail analogy. Ethnicity, by definition, is only attributable to humans and is based on cultural aspects with a great emphasis on self identification (Ethnic group). I agree with you also that all the groups who carry the name Hemşin (in whichever writingform) should find place within this article and that Hemşinli of Hemşin proper is the lead group. By the way, Hemşin proper is not only the Fırtına valley but also the Hemşin valley.The present administrative units are the Çamlıhemşin and the Hemşin "ilçe"s.Omer182 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just meant that one group's lack of knowledge about the existence of another related group does not mean that the two groups become unrelated. Insular self-identification doesn't mean that the wider reality changes, or should be disregarded. But anyway, there is probably not enough material to justify separating the geographically separate groups into separate wikipedia articles. BTW, according to the Simonian book, there are also Hemshinli villages in the upper parts of the valley up from Çayeli, as well as the Firtina and Hemşin valleys (and their tributaries). There are also Hemshinli living in the Hodichur valley. I wonder if they are also in Hevek?Meowy 01:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Under early Ottoman rule upper parts of (today's) Çayeli formed Senos (or Exanos) which was one of the "nahiye"s of the "kaza" Hemşin...In that sense this area is to be regarded as Hemşin proper. Hemşinli people, I believe from the village of "Çinçiva", have started using the Hoderchur Plateu in the 19.century... So, as far as I know, Hoderçur had contacts with Hemşin but is not Hemşin. Regarding Hevek, I guess need to look into that. As of now, I believe there is nearly no spot in Turkey where you would not find some families with origin in Hemşin. Omer182 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hodichur was entirely Armenian until 1915. After that, the lands and houses of its former owners were taken by Muslims from the surrounding area - some of them would have been from Hemshin since it is relatively easy to access the valley from Hemshin. I know that some of the villagers from Polovit yayla live in a village in Hodichur in the winter. Hevek and some of the surrounding villages were partly Christian Armenian, so the same may have happened there. Yes, in the 19th century Hemshinli from Çinçiva (Şenyuva) had started to use a yayla pasture in Hodichur, at first paying rent for it but eventually deciding to claim ownership over it. Simonian's book calls this yayla the Hnay (or Khgher) yayla - I wonder if it is the "Davali" yayla at the very top of Hodıchur valley, whose name some other books say came about because of a 19th-century legal case over its ownership. Meowy 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Omer,

Unfortunately wiki is not a place for you to publish your opinions and your interpretations of Hamshenis as a group of Armenian people. You continue to remove content and not justify it, including the picture. I have no choice but to report you.67.49.45.88 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the end of "major revision proposed" to see my comment on the above entry.Omer182 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

i did and there is no consensus - defining an ethnic group is not goal of wikipedia and words hamshenis has been used is your original research, the bert vaux paper is definitive topic on paper and I reported you once. do not make me do it again67.49.45.88 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there was a wholesale revert of the article I answer the above entry at the bottom of "major revision proposed" section. The text of the unknown user may include something related to the discussion on title but it is rather vague and confused...Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Protect??

From my talk:

please protect hamshenis page, omer keeps adding original research, no citations and refuses to explain his mass edits, where there is not consensus.67.49.46.213 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not that familiar with the subject, so it is not that easy to spot the original research to me. Can you elaborate on the talk page of the article. Also if you want to seriously be involved in wikiediting please get yourself an account, it only requres a few seconds and gives you many benefits, including more serious attention to your editing Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • -- sure - intro reads like an essay and user removes content with citations from reliable sources for original research. he paints a picture removing armenian association from armenians of hamshen, like denying genocide or the like. I asked him for citations and consensus on talk, but he keeps removing, his earlier vandalism included removal of the picture as well, either he needs to be banned and spoken to or article protected.67.49.46.213 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you, guys, think I should protect the article to help you solve the problem on the talk page? I do not see much edit warring now. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, loook athis edits, vandalism and original research interpretations. he removes dozens of cited ideas sentences for his blabber, anti-armenianism and so on67.49.46.213 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be protected just yet. Omer's edits do introduce substantial amounts of material that is either original research or POV and have removed substantial amounts of referenced material, but that alone is not enough of a reason to protect a page - these problems could be addressed in the talk page. Also, Omer has been making comments and suggestions, some useful, some not so useful, in the talk page for a long time, so he is not the type of editor who will just walk away and never return if the article were to be protected for a week or month or several months. So what's the point of protecting a page if as soon as it's unprotected the same problems arise? Nor can we say that the version Omer wants to change is good enough to remain for a long period as the protected article. Meowy 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to adress the concerns regarding my edits mentioned above:

My approach to editing has been completely in complience with the wikipedia policies. Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007. Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on this page. My reason for proposing revision was my opinion that the entry did not stand NPOV as it was. After waiting for app. 20 days, with no response from the contributors, I put a reminder that I was waiting for a response on 2 September 2007. Eventually, with no confrontation and actually some vague agreement on my proposal, I put a dispute tag (9 October 2007). Then, I started the procedure for section by section editing which comprised of first posting the proposal for the edits regarding the relevant section and waiting for discussion for a reasonable amount of time. My first proposal was posted on 28 October 2007 in the discussion page. All my edits have been implemented following the procedure outlined above. So far, I have edited the introduction paragraph of the article, and two sections. My last edit was dated 13 April 2007.

Regarding the responses to my edits, I should say that I did not get any discussion! Starting with 17 January 2007, some users (partially with only IP addresses) have engaged in wholesale reverts, one after the other. The last in chain is the user IP:67.49.46.213 who is the reason for this discussion. There were two aspects common to the approaches of all these users:

• they all made wholesale reverts basically taking the article back to one of its versions prior to 9 October 2007 (Thereby also undoing some edits even before my contributions)
• they completely avoided discussion.

Actually I kindly invited them (numerous times) to specifically tell me which statements in my edits they believed were unsourced or were incorrect. Unfourtunately, I did not get any responses so far.

User IP:67.49.46.213 keeps insistantly making wholesale reverts with no discussions. His/her responses to my invitations for discussion were not understandable, and many times emotional and angry. Just as an example, last part of his/her remark on the summary of his/her most recent revert reads "..no one agrees with your vandalsim, shoo leave bad turkce!". The language is not understandable and does not say anything solid regarding the entry. Several other examples can be observed if one goes through the history of the article as well as the discussions above.

I am not sure if it is still important to touch the "removed picture" issue, after what I have written above, but for the record, I want to say that I have not removed any pictures. I had removed a template by mistake, and realizing this I put it back, after I was warned (see my entry on 11 May 2008 on this page under groups section). The picture that user IP:67.49.46.213 mentiones is the "A Hamsheni woman in traditional dress" picture which was removed by another user before my edits. I have tried telling this to user IP:67.49.46.213 numerous times, but due to communication problems I could never get my message across.

Finally, with regard to allegations related to original research/unsourced edit/ removal of sourced contributions, I want to quote here again my input on 23 April 2007 on this page: "...In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source 'The Kingdom of Armenia: A History' by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it. If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify".

A quick glance at the discussion page under the heading "major revision proposed" will verify all my responses above.Omer182 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SPECIAL SECTION FOR OMER TO DISCUSS EACH OF THE SENTENCES HE WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE

Ok, this is my final try with omer. here he can place and discuss all edits he wamnts to add or remove, one by one, instead of vandilizing page. his edits should be backed by citations and there should be consensus. if he does not work and simply reverts, admins should ban or protect. i have been trying for weeks without a response from this vandal.67.49.46.213 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)