Talk:Armenian genocide

== Section needs to be improved and more appropriately integrated == yo

Many Armenians were massacred in neighboring Iran (Salmas, Khoy, etc) during the genocide. Why is this put in a section down pretty far below? Shouldn't this be integrated into the main sections about the killings? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why, probably because it does not fit with the Armenian dogma that the genocide started on 24 April 1915. In reality the genocide started in January 1915 inside Persia with the massacres you mentioned, then spread westward into the areas of the Ottoman Empire immediately bordering Persia, then arrived in Van. All this happened before April 24th. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and opinion. I don't know whether it has anything to do with any "dogma" (though obviously if everyone cites a specific date, its hard for the massess trying to deviate from it, no matter how "right" it might be), but its brings down the quality content of this article. Information regarding the massacres there by the Turks should not be omitted, for they were many in number, and it shouldnt be put in some subsection far below as it is currently. Perhaps the addition of Qajar Persia in the infobox with some references droppped after it that state "by Ottoman troops". Something alike the Assyrian Genocide page. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Why is the location given as just "Ottoman Empire" when the genocide also spread into Iran and into the Russian Empire? (If I were to give an answer it would be along the same lines as my earlier reply.) I'm going to add these two, following the example of Assyrian Genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Photos to add

this image of crucified armenian girls http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/children/07r.jpg from this page should be added http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_6.php

Returning to "A notice concerning these pictures"

In earlier posts (see archives 22 and 23) I raised objections to a number of the images used in this article. Other editors have also raised questions about them. I propose going through each problematic image, presenting my reasons for their removal. Any images I find that are in breach of copyright I will go ahead and delete without discussion, though I will mention that I have deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have deleting as being in breach of copyright - the photograph titled "Armenian child refugees". This photograph was taken by Vartan Derounian. It is published in the 1986 book "The Armenian Refugee Camp in Aleppo" by Robert Jebejain. Jebejain writes that Derounian "left Aleppo" in 1947. So, even if Derounian died in 1948 this photograph is still under copyright and should not be on Wikipedia or Commons. It has also been given a deceptive file name - the photo was taken in Aleppo in the 1920s, not 1915. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Since that photograph was taken (or created, if you want to use more legal terms) in Aleppo in the 1920s, I'd assume that it will fall under PD-Syria per Photographs or works of fine arts or works of plastic arts: created prior to 1994. An example of the use of this tag in a similar circumstance can be found here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Would that not be only if it can be proven that it was first published in Syria. I am citing the Jebejian book as a reference for when Derounian was alive, not as a statement that this photo was first published in this book (there is no indication in the book to support such a claim - nor is it likely, given the time difference). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But the book was published in Aleppo, Syria in 1986, so there shouldn't be a problem regarding its publication either. But it's not even about the publication that's important. Syrian copyright laws don't need it to be published, only created. So what's crucial is when and where the photograph was taken. As indicated by Jebejian's book, this photograph was taken in the Kilikian school in Maidan in 1940, or in other words, the photographs were created in Syria before 1994. So it's definitely PD. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I had assumed that it meant place of first publication, rather than initial creation. The pd template tag seems to stress date of publication rather than creation [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Syria reserves rights for the creator rather than the publisher. I think the Wikimedia commons tag is much more reliable and updated. So see, for example, the Syria PD tag here: [2]. This is indeed a stark contrast with the USA which always favors the publisher and its date of publication. However, whatever is PD outside of USA can be considered PD under certain specifications which seems valid in this case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If the copyright issue regarding the use of the photo is settled, I'm OK with the photo being reinserted, though its caption (like many of the captions) needs improving. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield Is there any caption you'd recommend? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book it is in, which gives the date it was taken as well as more detail about its circumstances. But I've forgotten where I've put the book! If you go ahead and reinsert the image I'll add a fuller/better caption when I relocate the book. As for the rest of the images - I think it would be better to have them placed in some chronological order, perhaps as "early phases", "later phases" and "aftermath" or something along those lines. But at the moment the extreme vagueness of many of the captions precludes doing this for many of the images. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I know when and where the photograph was taken. It was taken in the Kilikian school in Maidan in 1940 according to Jebejian's book. But I feel the photograph may not be too relevant to the Armenian Genocide itself, since it was taken more than two decades after the actual events. We cannot even ascertain as to whether these orphans are actually orphans of the AG. That'll be OR on our part. So I say it's best we refrain from reinserting the photograph for now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Tents in Aleppo" [3] - is a meaningless photo in a tiny resolution. There is no indication that its subject that it has anything to do with the Armenian Genocide.
"Armenian deportees in Malatya who were eventually massacred" [4] - has a ludicrous caption. The buildings depicted are clearly Russian Tsarist-era structures, probably at Alexandropol, Yerevan or Etchmiadzin, and the people depicted, especially the men, are wearing clothing worn in the Russian empire. The fact that it is identified as being "Malatya" in a US newspaper does not make it true - US journalism was notoriously loose with facts and images and there is no reason we should blindly reproduce obvious falsehoods. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Étienne Dolet for correcting the caption. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian military officers and troops of the Armenian volunteer units standing next to the bodies of victims.

I think have seen this in a 1900s newspaper article, so it cannot be from 1915 or after. Will update this when I relocate the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It appeared in the French magazine "Numero" from 1904. Has the headline "Les Nouveaux Massacres d'Armenie". The article details an August 1904 encounter between some Armenian Fedayeen (though the article does not call them such, and the wording suggests mostly amateurish wanabe-fedayeen) from Oltu and Ottoman troops, in which the Armenians were massacred. So it is not a genocide photo at all. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Eliticide" category

I removed this cat because the article does not speak of eliticide.

Potočnik (talk · contribs) reverted with edit summary "eliticide does not preclude genocide". Of course, when genocide happens, elite is killed too. This does not mean that we have to add add category "eliticide" into every genocide page. Genocide also kills old people. We don't put every genocide into "senicide category. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But I also believe that that category may be suitable for Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable resources

Just to note, I am removing two unreliable sources ([5] and [6]) from the lead that are currently placed after the sentence "Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy." Firstly, these sources do not in any way support the statement that many historians consider these as the part of the same genocidal policy. Secondly, these webpages were written by students and interns, one even majoring in a completely unrelated topic ("a junior at Georgetown University, majoring in international political economy"). They are by no means scholarly sources, the resources they use are unreliable websites and the information they contain is often blatantly inaccurate e.g. the death toll they give for the Assyrian genocide (750,000) far exceeds that given by any respectable scholar working on the field (150,000-300,000). In this light, we need reliable sources to support the statement which does not seem to be substantiated anywhere else in the article. I will be working on that. --GGT (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have brought over sources that support the statement from the Greek genocide article and brought the wording in line with the wording there ("some scholars and organizations have recognized these events as part of the same genocidal policy"), which seems to be more appropriately supported by Schaller and Zimmerer's introduction: "The Thematic Issue of the JGR, the republication of which is proposed here, is the first publication, which addresses these wider issues." If this is deemed controversial, please do revert my edit and bring the topic up at Talk:Greek genocide as well. --GGT (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The new sources are an improvement. I agree that the old ones were invalid. Words like "some" or "many" or "most" are context related. Obviously, "most" historians have not written a single word about the Armenian Genocide. I'd say that if the majority of scholars who have worked on the study of the Greek or Assyrian genocides consider those events to be part of the same genocidal policy as the Armenian Genocide, then the word "most" is appropriate. If a large proportion but not the majority do, then it is "many", if a small minority do, then it is "some". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

MiszaBot

I have deleted this code that archives talk page content after 30 days. It is partly responsible for creating the ludicrously large number of talk page archives, and is responsible for burying within those archives discussions of ongoing issues and rendering those past discussions all but useless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Old Lies

Seems they never die. (Personal attack removed) [7]. "The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and sent to their deaths some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople" is the latest version of a particularly long running lie. The main article Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 lists the names of the deported. 77 are listed as having been "killed". 81 are listed as having "survived". A similar number listed as fate unknown, and some are listed simply as having died (from a variety of causes, some indirectly arising from their deportation, some from natural causes, some from random accidents like falling from a horse). Thus, as I had pointed out during an earlier appearance of the lie [8] there is no justification for text that claims they were all "sent to their deaths" or "all killed" or "all executed" or anything similar. About 1/3rd are known to have been killed, about 1/3rd are known to have survived. And those that were killed were killed over a considerable period of time - not within a matter of days of their arrest, so text claiming or suggesting that they were arrested for the immediate purpose of "sending them to their deaths" is unjustified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why some editors like them so much? Please retract this baseless personal attack. After you retract it, I will reply to you. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A blatant falsehood has been repeatedly inserted into the article by many editors over the course of many months. I have on several occasions pointed out that falsehood, and on several occasions removed it only to see it eventually return. So the question "why are they doing it?" is a very valid one given that nobody except myself has bothered to explain their reasoning on the talk page. So the question will not be withdrawn. You cannot speak for those other editors, but you can answer for yourself. Why are you inserting content that has been shown to be clearly wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not what you said. You said: I wonder why some editors like them so much? You used the verb "like" which is an egregious personal attack. And to make sure you directed it against me you linked to one of my edits. So I ask you again to retract the PA before I reply to your questions. Dr. K. 03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is starting to look like you are searching for excuses to avoid explaining your editing reasons. You spent time restoring a version of the content I removed. Presumably you did "like" that content you added. If you did not "like" it, why did you insert it? If you genuinely consider my protest at the unwarranted restoration an "egregious personal attack" would you please take it to the appropriate forum. If you want, I can add diffs for when various other editors added the same content, if that will make things less personal in your eyes. None of this absolves you of the requirement to explain your edits here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me be more clear then. I guarantee to you that I will reply to your questions but I will not do so under threat of verbal violence. So for the last time: Please retract your PA. Dr. K. 04:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You actually are searching for excuses to avoid explaining your editing reasons! Astonishing. You have a requirement to explain your edits. That is what this talk page is for. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You should learn to AGF on top of stopping your personal attacks. I refuse to discuss anything until you stop your attacks. I am not obliged to talk to someone who uses verbal violence to prevail in discussions. Dr. K. 04:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield. I understand your concerns regarding the 2,345 figure. However, I think we can agree that most deportees either died or were killed. But I'd encourage to simplify it by saying most of those deported were killed because dying due to forced death marches should constitute murder, especially during the AG where death marches played an instrumental role. I also don't like the fact that the lead is now stuffed with citations over this. First things first, that should be removed. Besides, that's encouraged under WP:WHYCITE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for some actual content discussion. I think all that can be said from the sources which consider the actual identities of those deported is that about 1/3rd are known to have been killed, about 1/3rd are known to have survived, and the remainder had unknown fates or died of natural causes or from random accidents. Of course it could be argued those many of those 20 who are recorded as having just "died" rather than being "killed" were put in the physical position of dying through being deported, but such victims are not generally included as victims or we would be including those that died of disease or starvation in Russian Armenia or in independent Armenia into the total number of genocide victims (though personally I consider that they were). And it is likely that most of the unknown fates are unknown because they died or were killed. I think all sources would include those dying due to forced death marches in the total number of genocide victims since death marches were a method used to implement that genocide. I would be happy with text that read something like "of those deported, only around 80 persons are known to have survived". Having text that claims "they all died" is a serious misrepresentation of what happened. The 2345 issue is much more difficult to deal with if we have editors wanting it in the article because many sources contain that number. I think it is very credible that 2345 is just an error by whoever typset Uras's 1950 "Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi" - but it has been blindly reproduced by probably thousands of sources. The vagueness in the use of the 2345 figure (for example, Dadrian assumes the 2345 are separate from the April 24 235, Akcam however assumes the 235 are include in the 2345 figure, Uras doesn't appear to mention the 235, only 2345) seems further proof that it is all just a typo. But it is OR until some usable source says it is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not for the "80 persons are known to have survived" because readers will be confused. "Well then, what happened to the rest?" would be the natural response to it. I think the safest bet, for now, is to just say "most of them either died or were killed" because that conforms to the sources and it's simply common sense. We still need to discuss whether forced death marches constitute a systematic attempt of murder. I myself am a proponent of that kind of wording, but I'd like to have a larger community input on that. Also, I remember reading that 235 was from the first night alone, and that the arrests continued after that. Balakian says that the 235 were "initially arrested". Kevorkian states: "the authorities arrested approximately 200 persons in this first round up." We also know for certain that Krikor Zohrab and Serengulyan were arrested in May. However, we know that those two were a special case. But were those the only two exceptions up until the month of May? We would have to dig deeper into it to find out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then let's just get rid of it, the it being "and sent to their deaths". And thus get rid of the jarring row of 10 references. This lead content is there to explain why April 24; content about how many of the April 24 235 died or survived is not required to explain April 24. It is not appropriate to detail in the lead who was arrested later (that sort of minor content is for the main body of the article). Content detailing the fates of the April 24 deportees can be dealt with in the appropriate section of the body of the article, where the ambiguities in the sources can be better explored. But if this 10 sources "and sent to their deaths" statement remains in the lead it will require additional wording to indicate that other sources differ and indicate they were definitely not all "sent to their deaths" - it will look and read messy, but it will be accurate according to what the various sources say. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. insisted that those references be removed per this edit-summary [9]. I know that he provided them only so that we can have a database on the article itself so we can verify them. So thank you Dr.K. for providing them. At any rate, I'm sure we can all agree that the current wording is a suitable compromise. I also strongly suggest that before we make any edits on the article itself, we should discuss it here first. This article receives enough mainspace wear and tear already. Also, can we please have this section header changed? Frankly, I'm really uneasy about writing under a section called "Old Lies". It makes it appear that those who support one side as opposed to another would be "lying". The section header should be written in such a way where all sides of the debate would be equally respected and welcomed, regardless of whether you find their opinions correct or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't support the "most were murdered" wording because it is not supported by the actual data given in some sources and because it is not content that is needed in the lead to explain "why April 24th?". I think it should either be removed, or wording added to indicate that about 1/3rd are known to have been murdered. Or use the "only around 80 are known to have survived" wording - I don't think this wording will be confusing to readers. As for the "Old Lies", sources that unequivocally state (such as in these quotes from some of the sources cited by Dr K) things like "They were deported to Anatolia where they were put to death" or "rounded up approximately 250 prominent Armenian intellectuals, and exterminated them" are peddling blatant falsehoods, and I believe they are knowingly lying, lying for propaganda effect. These falsehoods and other ones have been around for decades, and they do no good except to Turkish genocide denialists who can write articles exposing them (they are never even hard to detect lies) and thus cast dispersions on the truthfulness of AG sources in general. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources added to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V

For the record these are the expert sources added to the article to support the deportation and systematic annihilation of the Armenian leaders and intellectuals per WP:RS and WP:V. I also added relevant quotes to facilitate verification. Dr. K. 06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

9 reliable sources supporting the deportation and systematic murder of the Armenian leaders and intellectuals

1. Please see also Ugur Ungor <ref name="UngorPolatel2011">{{cite book|author1=Ugur Ungor|author2=Mehmet Polatel|title=Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sg0SBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA65|date=9 June 2011|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=978-1-4411-1020-6|page=65|quote=...were rounded up and deported to the interior where most were murdered.}}</ref> 2. <ref name="Rae2002">{{cite book|author=Heather Rae|title=State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Y8ni5uLZtFkC&pg=PA160|date=15 August 2002|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-79708-5|pages=160|quote=on the night of 23-24 April 1915 with the arrest of hundreds of intellectuals and leaders of the Armenian community in [...] They were deported to Anatolia where they were put to death.}}</ref> 3. <ref name="Congress2006">{{cite book|author=U S Congress|title=Congressional Record, V. 148, PT. 4, April 11, 2002 to April 24, 2002|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iOgfSDKecCcC&pg=PA5557|date=May 2006|publisher=Government Printing Office|pages=5557–|id=GGKEY:5A41AAJE9JZquote=The Armenian Genocide, which began on April 24th, 1915 began with the systematic killings of 200 intellectual and ...}}</ref> 3. <ref name="Whitehorn2015">{{cite book|author=Alan Whitehorn|title=The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0vrnCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA139|date=26 May 2015|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-61069-688-3|page=139|quote=That particular date was chosen because on April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Young Turk government began deporting hundreds of Armenian leaders and intellectuals from Constantinople (Istanbul); most were later murdered en masse.}}</ref> 4. <ref name="Nelson2005">{{cite book|author=Emmanuel Sampath Nelson|title=The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Multiethnic American Literature: A - C|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tWH3wNV5HpQC&pg=PA205|year=2005|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-313-33060-5|page=205|quote=On the night of April 24, 1915, the brightest representatives of the Armenian intellectual elite of Constantinople, including witers, musicians, politicians, and scientists were arrested and brutally massacred.}}</ref> 5. <ref name="KrikorianMasih2013">{{cite book|author1=Robert Krikorian|author2=Joseph Masih|title=Armenia: At the Crossroads|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yXRTAQAAQBAJ&pg=PR25|date=11 October 2013|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-134-41225-9|page=25|quote=On the night of April 24, 1915, several hundred leading members of the Armenian community were rounded up and sent off into exile and eventual death}}</ref> 6. <ref name="Weitz2015">{{cite book|author=Eric D. Weitz|title=A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29PyBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA5|date=27 April 2015|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-6622-9|page=5|quote=...who were deported inland and then executed.}}</ref> 7. Please see also Steven L. Jacobs who is a member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. <ref name="Jacobs2009">{{cite book|author=Steven L. Jacobs|title=Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1gwunFdWfNsC&pg=PA130|year=2009|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-0-7391-3589-1|page=130|quote=On 24 April 1915 the Ministry of the Interior ordered the arrest of Armenian parliamentary deputies, former ministers, and some intellectuals. Thousands were arrested, including 2,345 in the capital, most of whom were subsequently executed ...}}</ref> 8. <ref name="EltringhamMaclean2014">{{cite book|author1=Nigel Eltringham|author2=Pam Maclean|title=Remembering Genocide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=L-fpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40|date=27 June 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-75422-0|page=40|quote=organization that began as a revo- lutionary party – rounded up approximately 250 prominent Armenian intellectuals, and exterminated them.}}</ref> 9. <ref name="Powell2011">{{cite book|author=Christopher Powell|title=Barbaric Civilization: A Critical Sociology of Genocide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=v3Qm4pWlVNsC&pg=PA259|date=15 June 2011|publisher=MQUP|isbn=978-0-7735-8556-0|page=259|quote=On the night of 23–24 April 1915, “scores of Armenian political, religious, educational, and intellectual leaders in Constantinople... were arrested, deported to Anatolia and put to death” (Hovannisian 1990, 260); an estimated 2,345 leaders were arrested “in Istanbul alone in a matter of weeks” ...}}</ref>

Yes, they look to me as good sources, and they do support the statement, as clear from quotations. Hence my edit. I realize that the exact number of people who died during this particular episode(s) is difficult to identify, so that a more vague statement (something like "many died" or "most of them died" - that is what sources actually tell) would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much My very best wishes for your comments and your edit to the article. Dr. K. 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have put "the majority", though even that is unsupported by the evidence presented in specialist sources as opposed to simplified statements made in the very general sources cited by Dr K. However, "the majority" is probably a true assessment given that most of those with unknown fates had those unknown fates because they did not survive. At least 81 individuals from the April 24 1915 arrests are known to have survived (i.e., about 1/3rd of the total). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I prefer "the majority of whom were eventually murdered." I've always found that the "with" construction is a bit vague--it carries no logical weight but suggests it. Wiktionary has "Used to indicate simultaneous happening, or immediate succession or consequence" listed fourth, sure, but "possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment" (citing another dictionary) is a more primary meaning these days--and that's kind of weak, in this context. It's not unlike the use of "also" every time an editor inserts another factoid in the biography of some trivial person. Anyway, carry on. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies. For the record, this formulation was mine which was then reverted with edit summary rewording some bad English. I am glad that my edit survived and was validated by other wiki editors, including yourself. As far as any potential trolling in the reverting edit-summary, I will AGF it was not. Dr. K. 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked about this issue [10] here [11]. The opinion there is that "whom" seems the best, so I will accept that. Are there objections to removing the "rounded up" part as suggested by the respondents? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At that board, I think Deborahjay is right. Rounded up has a different overtone than arrested. Such terminology has been consistently used during the Holocaust and etc. Also, the sources use that terminology so it shouldn't really be a problem. Ideally, I'd like the sentence to be shortened too, but we shouldn't sacrifice phrases and words that clarify the event merely for the sake shortening things. But if we were to drop a word in that sentence, it would be "arrested". After all, these are innocent human beings were are talking about here. I wouldn't want to provide the readers even an inkling of a thought that would make it appear otherwise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As an alternative if a word were to be dropped, I'd also support the removal of arrested (and keeping "rounded up") in order to shorten the text and remove the comma issue that was mentioned in the reference desk discussion. Arrested would imply it was part of a genuine judicial process - whether it was or not I'm not clear. Although those killed were never convicted of anything, in most judicial systems you can be arrested without being charged, and everyone who is arrested is still innocent until convicted even if charged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Portrayal in the media

Would editors like to give their opinion about what should be in this section of the article and what its purpose is. Much of the present content seems unimportant, minor films or trivial mentions of the AG in books. It appears to be little more than a list of every book or film or musical creation that is based on or has mentioned or alluded to the genocide. There is no content there from sources about why such and such a film or book or whatever is important. I suggest that unless a portrayal or mention is written about in a third party source, and that the source indicates the portrayal is a significant contribution to the subject, it should not be there. I am asking this after rereading the chapter titled "Armenian literary Responses to the Genocide" by Rubina Peroomian in "The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics". There seems to be much content from it that could be included in this section if it were reworked. I suggest that the section title be changed to something like "Artistic responses to the Genocide" and that the content should be based on what sources have written about artistic responses rather than just a list of examples of artistic responses. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140124204800/http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-let-me-denounce-genocide-from-the-dock-420011.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-let-me-denounce-genocide-from-the-dock-420011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

2602:304:B0AF:6969:958F:89FA:2F3C:BC3B (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Please baby let me edit

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Yazidi genocide

I would like to see the genocide of Yazidi people also mentioned in the article, in addition to that of Greeks and Assyrians. Some sources: The Unknown Turkish Genocide Of Kurdish Yezidis, Khanna Omarkhali mentions this in the foreword to her dissertation (p. 18). More and better sources surely can be found. This article (also in Russian) is also available. --Dorpater (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Greek and Assyrian comparisons have sources for those comparisons. You are not presenting suitable sources that contain a similar comparison for Yezidi (that webpage is not suitable, nor I think is a dissertation). However, I think that even if sources were found it would be a fringe opinion given that there is not a Wikipedia article on the subject of this alleged genocide. For my part, while they have certainly been subjected to sustained persecution, especially before WW1, and I know that Yazidi were caught up in the Armenian genocide when Ottoman forces invaded Russian Armenia, with many fleeing the advancing Turks in the same way and for the same reasons as Armenian civilians did, I don't know of events that are on a scale that would sustain the label "genocide". Some of the Yazidi population/victim figures in the ekurd webpage seem pure fantasy, btw. "Van region -- 100,000 innocent victims; Moush region -- over 60,000 victims" - these are just laughable claims. Take two zeros off the end and they might be credible. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The source does not suggest that Armenian Genocide was the reason for coining term Genocide

The phrase from 3rd paragraph" "Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation to coin the word genocide in 1943" seems to be inaccurate. The source given, while acknowledges that Armenina genocide influenced Lemkin, also states explicitly that "In 1944, Lemkin wrote a book about the Nazis. In it, he combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing: Genocide. Lemkin had named the crime he spent a lifetime trying to prevent. " which I believe clearly suggests that it was holocaust that was the reason for coining the term "genocide". Moreover the article pertaining to the word itself is stating that the reason for coining the term was holocaust. I do not posses the book mentioned and as such can't make the judgement however one of the two articles is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.207.172 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The source says Lemkin's "bold plan" proposal to "punish -- and prevent -- racial mass murder" dates from 1933 (i.e. from before the Jewish Holocaust) and that it was a response to the question of how to punish the perpetrators of events like the Armenian genocide, a question Lemkin had been asking himself as a direct result of what we now call the Armenian Genocide. The term genocide was coined for that purpose: "He revived his 1933 proposal and set his sights on the fledgling United Nations. He hoped this new world body, born out of the ashes of World War II, could create and enforce an international law against genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209091255/http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257 to http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

State agency sets out to fend off Armenian genocide claims

The Turkish Historical Society (TTK) compiles data, articles and other works on the alleged genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I to stave off claims by Armenia in a long-standing dispute between the two countries.

Armenia claims up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed in an act of genocide by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 during World War I. Turkey accepts the mass deaths of Armenians during their forced deportation during the war, but claims the death toll was much lower and attributes mass deaths to diseases and isolated cases of attacks.

Ankara has also urged Armenia to let historians handle the matter, though Armenia demands recognition of the incidents as "genocide" in order to advance relations between the two neighboring countries.

TTK started compiling all articles on the issue written in Turkey and throughout the world to publish books on the genocide claims. Books will be sent to libraries across the country as well as international historians. Speaking to Habertürk daily, TTK President Refik Turan said articles included indisputable scientific facts. "We never set out to collect articles with claims that may be disputed. The facts in the books we will prepare may contain information that may displease an Armenian defending genocide claims, but at least they would ascertain that this is the truth based on facts. We have the upper hand to counter the allegations as we have enough documents and data to back Turkey's claims," he said.

In April 2014, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who was prime minister at the time, offered condolences for the Armenian deaths that occurred in 1915 - a first for a Turkish leader as the country froze diplomatic relations with Armenia both over the genocide issue and Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave also claimed by Turkey's close ally, Azerbaijan. The move was seen as a significant step toward a possible reconciliation. Separately, Turkey has called for a joint Armenian-Turkish research project into the events, making use of the archives in both countries, to establish the facts.