Talk:Hemshin people

Edit war

Omer asked me to help you find a solution to the editorial conflict over this page. To my shame I am really ignorant in the history of Hemshins. It is good since I do not have my own biad there, but it also bad as you would have to explain to me the background facts that might be pretty obvious to elsebody. You can ask me to get lost and find another mediator if you feel like this.

Am I right that the main point of the conflict is whether in the lead we can state in the lead as a fact that Hameshins is a diverse group of people (like Dagestani, I presume) rather than a single ethnic group (as e.g. Chechens)?

If so does Omer's sources support the assertion? Are there any reliable sources that are of different opinion? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex, thank you very much for your prompt response.

Let me start off by saying that the major problem we have here on this page is that we are unable to have discussion. A quick glance at the talk page, at least under the title “editing the lead section” will give you hints about what I exactly mean. I do, however, believe that once we start discussing we can actually reach an agreement. I see your presence here as a nice opportunity.

The "Hemshinli" are rather unique in the sense that there does not seem to be any other group of people who have similar characteristics. Therefore I do not think that Dagestani or Chechens are appropriate examples. Herebelow I try to give an “informal” introduction to this rather interesting group of peoples, for you to get a feeling about what this article is all about. All what I say below is sourced by the references of the article.

Hemshin is a small region in northeast of Turkey, mountanious, remote and still not very easily accessible. In the daily life and language “ Hemshin-li” means simply "from Hemshin" and this form of designation is used in tens of thousands of occasions in Turkey in relation with towns, villages, regions and even city districts (say istanbul-lu etc) (like newyork-er). The people who still have ongoing ties to Hemshin form the main group of Hemshinli. They are Turkish speaking, muslim and have no selfunderstanding of being a specific ethnicity.

Our case becomes complicated because in addition to the "Hemshin-li" in this sense, there are two other sets of people who call themselves also Hemshin-li (or variants of this word in different languages) although they have no ongoing link to Hemshin and even no memory of any connection thereto in their family history…They obviously are the descendants of people who at some point(s) in history have migrated from Hemshin. The Hopa- Hemshinli are the ones located in several villages in Hopa, about 50 km east of Hemshin (still in Turkey ). They are muslims as well but speak in addition to Turkish a language which is recently found to be a archaic form of Armenian influenced by Turkish and "Laz". The third group lives beyond Turkish boundaries in the Caucasus and are of Christian faith..they speak also a language similar to the language of Hopa Hemshinli.

Those groups are becoming aware of each others existence only recently and through their intellectuals…

It is difficult when the cultural make up and histories of these peoples and the common link (being from hemshin) are tried to be analyzed. As expressed by the researchers in the field, the problem is that the history of Hemshin region and the people who throughout the history had been its residents, are full of unknowns….There are a number of theories related to many elements of the analysis. Starting from the name Hemshin…over whether Hemşin-li means really only the standart "new york-er" thing or whether it is designation of a ethnicity…if so what ethnicity, who migrated to Hemshin throughout the history and who migrated from it and why and how, etc. Actually a late 2007 book published with the name "The Hemshin" (basically a compilation of the inputs of various authors on various aspects of the Hemshinli) introduces itself as "groundbreaking" and the "first scholarly work" over the "enigmatic" Hemshinli.

In the wikipedia article over Hemshinli my contributions so far try to reflect the present status of the research related to the facts of the history and present situation (my contributions are limited to the sections "history" and "groups" in addition to "lead"). You can see there some more details regarding the history of the Hemshinli. Please note that the entry is still under development, and there are parts that still needs to be fixed as well as additional information that may need to be inserted. Naturally the lead section will need to be developed in accordance with the development of the article.Omer182 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alex, thanks for your interest

The main point of the conflict is not that "diverse group of people" point. It is that Omer182 has taken "ownership" of this article in order to POV war his opinion – an opinion that is not supported by any sources. He has, through a process of reverting or removing anything that he has not personally written and by actively distorting sources and altering text written by other editors, created an article that is not only extremely misleading but is almost unreadable.

Omer182's edits appear to have the end goal of muddying the waters mostly in order to create the impression that the Hemshini are not Armenian in origin, and that claims of their Armenian and Christian origin are disputed and unproven.

He initially went about this by trying to POV fork the article. He argued on this page for removing two of the three recognized Hemshinli groups from the article and moving them to separate entries: the Christian Armenian-speaking "northern Hemshinli" and the Muslim Armenian-speaking eastern or "Hopa Hemshinli". This was presumably because the Armenian origin of those two groups would be obvious to everyone. That initial attempt failed, and he has subsequently been engaged in rewriting the article to suit his POV and editing out any other editors' contributions. Any editor adding new material will find, often within hours, that Omer182 has reverted the article to a previous version, that version invariably being Omer182's version.

Omer182 has persistently removed fully referenced material from the article. He does not discuss beforehand his edits (most of which are reverts) to remove referenced material, and he does not justify their removal when asked. On a number of occasions he has said that he will, quote, "consider the additional information suggested" after removing the material from the actual article - an example of him behaving as if he owned the article.

The methodology of Omer182's edits is to discredit or marginalise mainstream academic opinions about the Hemshin peoples. He does this by using four primary methods.

Method 1 - He will use weasel-words in his text

Omer182's edits makes extensive use of known weasel words such as "is claimed", "there are views", "it is generally accepted", "recent studies claim", "some deduce", etc. He will characterize an accepted fact as one that is merely "claimed". In some cases he is using them to raise a false question about a statement's truth – for example, after stating that some Turkish historians say the Hemshinli are ethnically Turkish he writes "many other historians deduce that those were Armenians", when actually all sources, except for a few extremist Turkish ones that can be dismissed as propaganda, agree they were Armenians. His content is full of the passive voice, making the whole article appear deliberately vague and imprecise. If you check back to this edit, [[1]], I pointed out a lot of the weasel words – that resulted in Omer having to rewrite a lot of his material, and resort to method 4 for even more in his edits.

Method 2 - He will exclude all material that strongly disagrees with his POV.

For example, in one of his earlier edits [[2]], about the term "Hamshen" he claimed in the articles lead section that "in historical documents this term is absent". In the talk page I pointed out his error, explaining that Hamshen, or variants of it, actually is the name used in the oldest historical documents. I then cited an account by Purchas from 1614 as an example, and later added a quote from it into the article. Omer182 then removed that cited quote without explanation. After I reinserted it again, he again removed it without explanation, then, several weeks later, he reinserted a garbled and almost unreadable (see his method 4) passage that included a messed-up version of the same quote.

Here are the two versions, the first is easily the most encyclopaedic; concise, to the point, and giving a reason for its presence in the article.

Original version

Omer182's rewritten version

The earliest known certain reference to Hamshen and its inhabitants is the Haynsen mentioned in "La Fleur des histoires de la terre d'Orient" by Hetu'm of Corycos, written around 1307, translated into English in 1520, and later retold in the travellers' tales of Samuel Purchas published in 1614. Purchas writes of "a marvellous strange wonder … a province or county called Hamsem … whose whole extent is all covered over with such thick and palpable darkness that none can see anything, neither do they go into that Land, because they know not the way out again".

A description of "Haynsen" in the Kingdom of Georgia, its inhabitants and history is contained in "La Fleur des histoires de la terre d'Orient" by Hetu'm of Corycos, written around 1307, translated into English in 1520, and later reproduced in the travellers' tales of Samuel Purchas published in 1614. Purrchas uses the term "Hamsem" to designate the region and concludes that this is the place of the original Cimmerian gloom of Homer's Odyssey. The translation of He'tums related passage to modern English uses the term Hamshen. He'tum describes the region to be "miraculous and strange place" unbelievable unless seen by own eyes, dark and without roads. Signs of human settlement are that "...People in those parts say that one frequently hears the sounds of men bellowing, of cocks crowing, of horses neighing in the forest," Those people are described by He'tum, leaning upon Georgian and Armenian Histories, to be the descendants of the men of the "wicked" Iranian Emperor Shaworeos who had chased and harassed christian people. The referenced translation suggests this Emperor could be Shapuhr II, [A.D. 309-79].

Method 3 - He will deliberately falsify or cherry-pick source material in order to manipulate the source to suit his POV.

For example, in the current edit he writes "Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble" citing Simonian’s "The Hemshin", p257. That wording would give a reader the impression that Armenian and Hemşince are not related. However, in the actual source, the sentence that precedes the one he quotes states Hemşince "is generally treated as a dialect of western Armenian", and the actual sentence that contains the words "generally not mutually intelligeble" (btw, note Omer's moving of the word "not") ends by saying that Hemşince is "one of the most divergent and interesting varieties of Armenian". As another example, for his lead section statement "A recent proposal is to use the word Hemshin itself to designate these peoples" in this edit [[3]] he again provided as a reference the book "The Hemshin" . Actually the book makes no such claim and the reference was taken from content I had added and that Omer182 had quickly deleted.

Method 4 - He uses sentence stuffing: making accepted facts appear vague or uncertain by disguising them within overly convoluted and unreadable sentences.

This last method is now his most widely used one. Here are examples:

Original version

Omer182's rewritten version

The Hemshin or Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli, meaning of Hemshin), also known as Hamshenis, Homshentsi, and Khemshils, (Armenian: Համշենի; Russian: Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi (სუმეხი) are a group of peoples who originated in a mountainous district called Hemşin (historically "Hamshen") now located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. It is generally accepted that they were Armenian in origin, and were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but over the centuries they evolved into a distinct ethnic group. They are currently divided into three subgroups that are almost oblivious to one another's existence. These divisions were the result of population movements initiated by resistance to forced conversion to Islam and, latterly, for economic reasons.

The Hemshin Peoples are a number of diverse groups of people who in the past history or present have been affiliated with the Hemşin area. They are called (and call themselves) as Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli), Hamshenis, Homshentsi meaning resident of Hemshin (historically Hamshen) in the relevant language. . Further designations are Khemshils, (Armenian: Համշենի; Russian: Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi (სუმეხი)). Various contributors to the book "The Hemshin" published in 2007 also use the term "The Hemshin" in addition to the above designations to refer to those peoples. Hemshin is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. The Ottoman conquest of Hemshin in the 15th Century is followed by migrations, both to and from Hemshin, as well as Islamization. Consequently, distinctive communities with the same generic name have also appeared in the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus. Those three communities are almost oblivious to one another's existence.

Original version

Omer182's rewritten version

According to the History of Ghewond, an Armenian chronicler generally accepted to be from the late 8th century, after the Arab invasions of Armenia the Armenian nakharars (lords) Shapu Amatuni and his son Hamam, together with thousands of their subjects, abandoned their lands in the Lake Van region. They migrated to Byzantine-ruled Pontus, where they were granted lands. Ghewond dated this event to c.790, but another chronicler, Step'anos Ashoghik Taronets'i, dated it to the 750s. Hemshin folk traditions recorded in the 19th century told that the Hemshinli were the descendants of Armenian migrants led by a prince Hamam, who built a town named Hamamashen in their new lands. Over time Hamamashen became Hamshen, which became the name of the entire region inhabited by the descendants of those migrants. Historians have seen a connection between this story and the Amatuni migration; However, it is not possible to prove this oral history, nor be certain that prince Hamam is the same person as Hamam Amatuni.

Two other Armenian chronicles Ghewond and Stephen Asoghik of Taron, report in short passages in their histories about a migration from Armenia/Oshakan led by prince Shaspuh Amatuni and his son Hamam. Ghewond conveys this immigration to be to avoid heavy taxes imposed on Armenians by the Arab rulers. The Amatuni lords are offered fertile land to settle down by the Byzantine Emperor, after they crossed the Corukh river. This migration is dated to be after 789 by Ghewond and as 750 by Stephen Asoghik of Taron. Benninghaus specifies “Tambur” as the destination of the migration led by Hamam and his father Shapuh Amaduni and says that they have seemingly met people there who were already christians , possibly Greeks. Redgate informs about possible symbolism used in the Ghewond’s history and possible garbling in Mamikonian’s history, and cautions not to take everything at face value [31]. Hachikian states “There is no clue as to where Tambur, the legendary capital of Hamshen, was located. The only certain thing about it is that it clearly belonged to a much earlier time- if it existed at all”. He also mentions in the footnote the name similarity between Tambur and a yayla known as Tahpur or Tagpur, located in the heights of Kaptanpasa. Simonian states that Tambur is probably in the vicinity of Varoşkale (altitude 1800 m). Kırzıoğlu considers the migration to be by a turkish tribe who, before migrating to Hemshin had migrated from Hemedan to Osakan.

BTW,regarding Omer's last sentence in the above paragraph. That Kırzıoğlu person is described as a "pseudo-historian" by R. Bennighaus, and by W. Feurstein as "never before has a single person in Turkey falsified history so massively"!

Meowy 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you both for the long elaborate entries I certainly now more about Hameshins than before. I think disputes about the editorial behavior do not belong to article talk pages. Many edits of Omer you have mentioned do not look problematic to me. Maybe a user RFC is a correct forum for such disputes. I was under impression that we have one or many editorial disputes over the article. Maybe we could go one by one starting from the lead section? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please say which of the edits I have cited you consider unproblematic and explain why they are unproblematic to you. It is not possible to dispute constructively (in the normal Wikipedia meaning of the word) anything with Omer, he simply ignores and reverts, ignores and reverts. Meowy 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to stick with the original versions and work from there. Kırzıoğlu's assumption shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. By the way, what's his full name? Is he a historian or what? It isn't mentioned.

Alex, what do you mean by not problematic? Just compare the originals to his revisions. They aren't very well written, make use of weasel words, and cut out bits for no reason. Hakob (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu. Born in Kars in 1917, and was (I think) heavily influenced by the history of the place and (also I think) tried to make that interest acceptable by Turkifying it where possible. He was a teacher, wrote stuff on Kars and Ani, and became, late in life, a professor at Erzurum University. I wasn't aware of his work regarding the Hemshinli until I read the Simonian book. He was an historian, of sorts, an old-school Turkish-style one. Alas, he died a couple of years ago, kind of regret never making a point of meeting him. Last year the GHF demolished (along with a lot of other things) the little street in the old part of Kars that was named after him (was he born there?). Meowy 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether Omer's edits are problematic or not should be decided by the community or a consensus, I certainly find them problematic and until the concerns raised by Meowy are addressed than the long standing version should remain, that was stable for months prior to Omer's unilateral and controversial changes.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just undid the undiscussed wholesale edits that was just implemented on 00:13 , 4 July 2008, by Eupator who apperaed for the first on this page through this action.Omer182 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to briefly comment on the above discussions:

• I understand Alex's point that the focus here should be on the article from now on. I will thus not answer the allegations about my edits raised by Meowy, as doing so would take too much space here and would probably not serve the main purpose of discussing the article. However, for the record, I want to strongly state that a significant portion of his claims are based on his assumptions about my intents and consequent misunderstanding (or distortion?) and mispresentation of my edits . In case future discussions should touch those allegations, I reserve my right to come back and expose those distortions and mispresentations.
• A suggestion has been raised proposing that we go back to the original version and start from there again. In our case the "original" version would be the one dated June 8 (11:47) , as it is a version which was gradually built over several months, section by section and in a step by step manner, following a "first propose then implement" procedure, as encouraged by Wikipedia. As I recall, the version dated 8 june 2008 includes the lead section of version dated 21 nov 07, the history section of version dated 14 jan 08 and the groups section of versiton dated 13 April 08. In the period from their inclusion to 8 june 08 no edits were made on those sections except for unargumented, undiscussed wholesale revert attacks on the entire article. After this date Meowy's wholesale edits took place where entire passages were replaced overnight (the "originals" as presented in the left hand column in Meowy's argument hereabove are thus not the originals but are actually those which were produced by Meowy during this procedure). Meowy's actions and my own corresponding edits have yielded the version of 22 June 2008 (22:06) which is quite different from the "original" 8 june version in length, level of detail, number of inline citations etc.
• Alex, hoping that we may create a meaningful discussion athmosphere with your help, I want to raise a question regarding your suggestion that we start with the lead section. To my understanding the lead section is supposed to provide a summary of the entry, highlighting the important points. In this regard, would it not be more useful to first consider the presently most important two sections, namely the history and the groups sections, and see whether we have a disagreement there except for style questions . I am ofcourse, ok with starting with the lead section if that seems more appropriate to do so.Omer182 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A summary translation of the above: "Omer says he will revert undiscussed edits done by others, Omer says he will not answer questions about his own edits, Omer says that every editor must have Omer's prior approval before any material is added into the article, Omer requires that his own contributions already in the article must always remain untouched by other editors because only Omer is permitted to change them". Meowy 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Omer's assertion that the materials I called in the above tables "original versions" are not original versions is incorrect. There was no mention of the Hetu'm of Corycos/Purchas account in the article until I added that material. That material was then removed without discussion by Omer, removed by him again when I reinserted it, then it eventually reappeared as the garbled "Omer182's rewritten version". Same for the Shapu Amatuni migration / prince Hamam material - that material was not there until I put it there, it was repeatedly removed by Omer, then after a while it reappeared as the garbled "Omer182's rewritten version". Omer never bothered explaining his repeated removal of all that referenced material, nor did he ever bother discussing beforehand his rewritten versions. Meowy 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's examine the first half of the current lead section, and what is wrong with it. Meowy 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Current version, created by Omer	What is wrong with it?	Response from Omer	Response from Meowy
The Hemshin Peoples are a number of diverse groups of people who in the past history or present have been affiliated with the Hemşin area. They are called (and call themselves) as Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli), Hamshenis, Homshentsi meaning resident of Hemshin (historically Hamshen) in the relevant language. . Further designations are Khemshils, (Armenian: Համշենի; Russian: Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi (სუმეხი)). Various contributors to the book "The Hemshin" published in 2007 also use the term "The Hemshin" in addition to the above designations to refer to those peoples. Hemshin is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. The Ottoman conquest of Hemshin in the 15th Century is followed by migrations, both to and from Hemshin, as well as Islamization. Consequently, distinctive communities with the same generic name have also appeared in the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus. Those three communities are almost oblivious to one another's existence.	1) The English is badly written, grammatically incorrect, and structurally confusing. 2) It does not follow what seems to be the standard format for Wikipedia articles (which is to place all the alternative names in, or close to, the article's first sentence). 3) It takes 85 words to give the various alternative names for the Hemshinli, whereas my version says exactly the same thing in only 23 words. 4) The "Various contributors to the book "The Hemshin" published in 2007..." sentence is not the sort of thing that should be in an article's lead section. 5)The "Hemshin is located..." sentence begins 86 words into the lead section. It is ridiculous that a reader should be made to wait that long before learning where the main population group lives. In my version this is done after only 32 words - and my version also contains more information, saying that it is "a mountainous district". 6) The "The Ottoman conquest of Hemshin....". From that section, with those words at the start, a reader would make the assumption that the population movements were a result of an invasion. That is not correct. The population movements were a result of resistance to (and escape from) forced Islamization that was done either directly, in the form of actual violence, or indirectly, in the form of punitive taxation and discriminatory laws. My version succinctly summarises those correct reasons. 7)Omer's version also does not mention the two essential points about the Hemshinli's origin – that they were originally Christian and Armenian. My version does. 8)In my version the locations of the three groups are explained in the second paragraph, so the "the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus" sentence would not be needed in the first paragraph. Meowy 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)	Meowy’s comparison table quotes only first part of the lead section (as mentioned by Meowy as well). Therefore, some statements included in my version of the lead section are not reflected in the table and Meowy is criticising lack of some information in my version although they actually exist in the part he/she has not quoted. Having said that, herebelow are my detailed responses: 1) Those are generalities which I do not agree. I assume Meowy is detailing them below. I will respond to them point by point. 2) I am not aware of any such Standard format. What I am aware of is ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style) that “If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article” to which my version complies and Meowy’s version does not. (Actually, such recommendations are not to be taken with an emphasis, I believe going into this level of style detail in discussing such a complex article is awkward.) 3) This statement is factually wrong. Meowy’s 23 words seems to count the words of just a part of a sentence which includes the list of the names. My 86 words includes, in addition to the mere names, the following information: (i) that the Hemshin peoples are a number of a diverse groups of people, (ii) that those people have been affliated with the Hemshin area in the past history or present, (iii) that there are different categories of names namely (a) the ones used by both Hemshinli and others to designate the Hemshinli, (b) names used only by specific groups of non-hemshinli and finally (c) the term “the Hemshin”. I think such differentiation is important information. It can be argued that the designations used by specific non hemshinli groups of people (like sumexi by Laz) can be omitted alltogether. I do not think this is what Meowy proposes. With regard to the term “the Hemshin” some kind of explanation is necessary, because there is no humanbeing on earth that calls himself/herself “Hemshin” or calls a Hemshinli “Hemshin”. It sounds exactly like when a newyorker says “I am Newyork”. On the other hand, this name is used by some authors in their publications (to the best of my knowledge only in Simonian’s book). I have tried to express this situation in my previous edits with different sentences which all have met Meowy’s opposition. I have shown here above that the 86 words are not equivalent to Meowy’s 23 words. In any case, it should have already been obvious that the content of 86 words can not be the same with that of 23 words, even if there is inefficient use of language. 4) For my comment regarding this statement, see above. I personally do not believe that this term which has been used only in a specific book should necessarily be included in the lead section. The only reason I included it was to accomodate Meowy’s wishes. If he/she can come up with a formulation to include the same information in a more elegant way, we will have no difficulty in agreement. 5) In this entry we are considering various groups of peoples who are deginated through different names in different categories. I believe there is no unnecessary information given in my version and none of it should be dropped just to make sure that the map-location where they live is introduced earlier in the text. If Meowy considers the information “mountainous district” important , no objections to include those two words as well. 6) To start with I want to mention that the term “conquest” is a term which Meowy seems to be very fond of in his/her edits, and therefore I have overtaken it to my edits as well. Now Meowy used the term “invasion”, which is in its sense different from “conquest”. I had used the term “annexation” in my earlier edits (In choosing terms, we should not forget that the Ottoman-Turkish authority has made Hemshin part of the Ottoman land and since about 500 years it is part of the same country. Therefore “invasion” is not a good fit and in my opinion “annexation” is the appropriate one). My statement that the annexation (conquest) is followed by migrations is totally true. It does not imply that population movements happened during or right after the conquest, i.e. the flee of people due to the onslaught of the conquering army. However, if Meowy thinks that the current formulation is not clear, I think we can agree on one. I can suggest the following: “In 15th century, Hemshin was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. During the Ottoman period, two most important developments are migrations and Islamization. ” My version includes the statement “The details and the accompanying circumstances for the migrations and the Islamization process during the Ottoman era are not clearly known and documented. [13]”. In my opinion this statement addresses the issue more correctly. This statement is in part of the lead section that Meowy did not quote in the comparison table. 7)My version includes the statement: “The ethnical make up of the people living in Hemshin prior to the Ottoman conquest is similarly not clearly known and documented. [14] Generally it is accepted that there have been immigrations into this region in medieval times, especially from Osakan in Armenia. [15][16] It is well documented that the majority of people living in Hemshin were Christians of the "Armenian Apostolic Church" prior to Ottoman Conquest. [17]”. In my opinion this statement addresses the issue more correctly. This statement is in the part of my version that Meowy did not quote. 8)I could not understand what Meowy criticised here. Omer182 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)	1) Of course it is a generality. Omer may think his writing skills are good, but I think anyone reading Omer's text will doubt that to be true. 2) The normal usage is to place all alternative names within a lead section’s first sentence. Take a look at Wikipedia:Lead_section – the "Bold title" subsection, the example showing the various names of the United Kingdom. Omer's version is a far away from that ideal as it is possible to get. Omer's assertion that my version does not have the title in the first sentence is false, and also inexplicable given that it clearly does. 3) My statement is factually correct. Omer's version takes 85 words to complete the lists of all the alternative names, mine takes only 23 to list the same names. Omer's excuse that his is longer because it contains more details doesn't work – all he is doing is showing that his version is incorrectly written: all his extraneous detail and convoluted vagueness shouldn't be there. For his other point, this is the English Wikipedia, "Hemshin peoples" is being used as a language-neutral designator for all the various Hemshin-related population groups, and various books have used that word. Nobody in Turkey calls themselves "Turkish people", yet Wikipedia has its entry titled "Turkish people" and not "Türk Halkı". 4) The phrase "the Hemshin" has been used in other books. For example, see M. Dubin and E. Lucas Trekking in Turkey, p126, 1989. 5) Omer thinks that it is acceptable that a reader should have to wade through 86 words before learning where Hemshin is located. I do not, and I hope other editors will agree with me. I do not understand his blindness to his version’s severe structural failings. Even my version’s mere 32 words could be seen as close to a reader's limit. 6 & 7) Omer is trying to put words into my mouth to avoid answering the questions posed to him. Nowhere was I advocating for the use of the word "invasion" or against the words "conquest" or "annexation"! I was arguing against the use of (and positioning of) phrases that would give a reader a false reality. Omer's alternative phrase "During the Ottoman period, two most important developments are migrations and Islamization" is vague and euphemistic in tone and is not acceptable. Things should be stated honestly and clearly – the population movements were a result of resistance to (and escape from) forced Islamization. Being Armenian and being a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church was, during medieval times, essentially the same thing. So it doesn't make much difference if the "Armenian in origin" phrase were to be taken out of my proposed version, making it "Most sources agree that they were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. However, Omer's objection to "evolved into a distinct ethnic group" is not valid. It has been accepted that all three Hemshin groups are to be included in this one Wikipedia article because they possess the same historical origin. I.e., the Hemshin as a whole are a single ethnic group, but they are divided into several sub-groups. Or is Omer objecting to the phrase "ethnic group"? If so, it's an invalid POV argument because many books call the Hemshinli an "ethnic group". 8/ I mean that the whole sentence would not be needed if my alternative version was accepted. Meowy 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Version proposed by Meowy (and removed by Omer)	What is wrong with it?	Response from Meowy
The Hemshin or Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli, meaning of Hemshin), also known as Hamshenis, Homshentsi, and Khemshils, (Armenian: Համշենի; Russian: Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi (სუმეხი) are a group of peoples who originated in a mountainous district called Hemşin (historically called "Hamshen") located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. Most sources agree that they were Armenian in origin, and were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but over the centuries they evolved into a distinct ethnic group. They are currently divided into three subgroups that are almost oblivious to one another's existence. These divisions were the result of population movements initiated by resistance to forced conversion to Islam and, latterly, for economic reasons.	To start with let me clarify that Meowy's proposal was created by completely removing my version. My version, on the other hand, was developed by means of taking into consideration Meowy's earlier criticism and some of his/her proposals. The comments I have provided in the above table covers what I think is wrong with Meowy’s version. Therefore the comments hereunder are in my opinion – at least partially- repetition of the above. Nevertheless, I still want to enter them here as well just to avoid an allegation later on claiming that I have not entered "anything in response to "what is wrong" related to Meowy's version”. 1) The first sentence should have the title of the article as the subject. (see WP ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style ), as in the first sentence of my version (See also above table for my views on style issue). 2) The fact that the designation "the Hemshin" is placed as the very first name is a mistake (see my comments in the above table for details). The differences in the nature of the designations are not explained (see my comments in the above table for details) 3) The phrase "originated from Hemshin" suggests that the majority/all Hemshinli are not located in Hemshin (original place) anymore. This is misleading because most of them are still living in Hemshin. Additionaly, some of the Hemshinli have actually settled in Hemshin only after some of the earlier Hemshinli have left the region. BTW even those who migrated from Hemshin did possibly not originate from Hemshin but had migrated to Hemshin from Osakan and previously had migrated to Osakan from Hemedan (sources hereto are given in the article under my version "history until Ottoman Conquest") 4) The phrase "a group of peoples" is also misleading because it implies that they have very much in common with each other although they don't in reality. 5) I had already inserted on the talk page on 12 june my objections upon Meowy’s first removal and change of my version then. Quoting from those comments, “Anyone who has spent some time on this issue knows that the topics of ethnicity (hesitate to say race), language, religion, migrations are controversial…Meowy's proposal declares all the people affiliated with Hemşin to be (unquestionably) of the same "origin", to be "armenians", to still belong to mutual "ethnicity", to have been subject to "forced islamization", etc..It is true that all these views are found in some literature but they are neither generally accepted nor unopposed. Therefore Meowy's proposal is not neutral. The above mentioned issues may be dealt with in the sections "history" and "groups"..Actually my present edits try to do that...”. Besides this, it should also be recalled that such claims are strongly rejected by the Hemshinli in Turkey. The WP article should not start with statements which are disturbing to Hemshinli in Turkey themselves who are the main topic of this article, especially given that the issue is controversial. 6) The phrase “evolved into a distinct ethnic group” is wrong. All these groups do not belong to a single ethnic group. That the Hemshinli of Hemshin proper and (in spite of the additional language ) even Hopa Hemshinli do not consider themselves as a special ethnicity is a fact without opposition. 7) This part includes controversial statements related to “forced islamization”. Again, the presence of such claims may be mentioned in the article in an appropriate form along with sufficient information for the reader to understand the background of such claims . However presenting them as unquestionable facts in the lead section constitutes POV. See also the above comments related to “Armenian origins” issue.Omer182 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)	That is wrong. Your version completely removed the earlier version. Unlike yours, the version proposed by me grew out of earlier versions, and also incorporates some of your material and suggestions, such as the phrase "group of peoples". 1) What a bizarre comment to make! The first sentence clearly does contain the title, along with (and unlike your version) every alternative name for the Hemshin-related population groups. 2) The article's title is "Hemshin peoples", so of course Hemshin should come first! In this talk page you agreed to "Hemshin peoples" as the article's title. 3) The phrase "originated from Hemshin" is factually correct. Are you saying it is not? The majority of the Hemshin peoples do not live in Hemshin region anymore, nor even do the majority of Turkish Hemshinli. Also, stop engaging in original research with your "possiblies". And additionally, nobody has proven that the account of the Amatuni migration form "Osakan" is historically true, or that it is actually connected to origin of the Hemshinli. 4) You were the one who first used the phrase "group of peoples"! 5) All of this is just your personal opinions – it has no validity for the article's content. All credible sources agree that the various sub-groups originated in the Hemshin/Hamshen region. Sources that are not credible or that are very marginal opinions should not be given place in a lead section. "The article should not start with statements which are disturbing to Hemshinli in Turkey" - really! Will we be be editing other Wikipedia articles to reflect that "policy" of not "disturbing" vested-interest groups? 6) The phrase "evolved into a distinct ethnic group" is essentially correct. Wherever they came from, whatever their origin, they are a distinct ethnic group and aspects of that distinctiveness developed over time. 7) "Forced islamization" is not a controversial phrase, and it accurately summarises the historical reality. There is a chapter about it in Simonian's book, and he uses that phrase. Some of this Islamization was, as I had said earlier, indirect, in the form of punitive and selective taxation of Hemshin’s Christian population, discriminatory laws leading to lack of land ownership security, etc. Some of it was more direct: massacres and threats of massacres. Almost none of it was voluntary. Meowy 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that Omer is showing signs of WP:OWN. Omer as you can see many of us are willing to listen and consider your changes, but pushing them thru edit warring is not gonna get you anywhere. Please discuss the changes, get a consensus and then make changes. At the present you announce that your going to drastically change half of the article and proceed in changing it right away. Those type of changes are almost always going to get reverted and the last one wasn't an exception. VartanM (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Vartan

• If you had the chance to read thru the discussion which you have archived on 5 july you would have seen that IT IS NOT ME who makes wholesale reverts and changes without discussion. You have reverted to a version created by user who had made a wholesale edit without any discussion. I have to revert it . I hope you now see the situation and that you are sincere in your statements and so help me in preventing such attacks on the article…especially as there is a possibility of a meaningful discussion on the agenda.

• BTW, the link for the archive you have formed points to Talk:Shusha, can you fix it? Omer182 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex, this is a quick update on the discussion:

• I was (and still am) in the hope of having a meaningful discussion. However a new user (Eupator) has implemented a wholesale edit with no discussion what so ever, followed by my revert. Vartan then reverted back to Eupator's version probably thinking that it was the standing version, which forces me to implement a revert as well. It seems we are heading towards further confusion instead of a disciplined discussion.

• I have raised a question regarding the discussion, namely would it be better to start with the history section as opposed to the lead section.

• Meowy has recently set up comparison tables for his and my versions of the lead section. To make sure that we can keep a disciplined discussion, I will wait for your response regarding the above question. If you see fit to go ahead with the lead and start it with Meowy's comparison idea, I will comment on his remarks. Omer182 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no version. I haven't made a single edit. I just reverted your edits to a version before you made these changes which reuslted in this mess, should be very clear.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate with version (date and time) you are reverting back to (It is not clear to me). What is clear is that you are undermining several months of edits and discussions (even the dispute tag placed in October 2007 is removed) by acting like that. So please understand that you are the one creating the "mess" and please stop doing so.Omer182 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Omer - it is your response to my many points that is awaited. I expect you to respond here to the points I have made regarding the problems with the current lead section, addressing each of the concerns I have raised in the "what is wrong with it" section of the above table, as well as saying what (if anything) you think is wrong with my alternative version. I've added a table cell for your response (look for the "Please write your comments below here, Omer" message in the table code) or you can reply as a normal posting. BTW, I fixed the archive link. Meowy 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a response from Alex is still missing, I have entered my comments to Meowy's criticism of my version in the related table. For presentation purposes I have numbered his/her statements and answered on the column dedicated for my response using corresponding numbers. Omer182 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now filled in the table related to what is wrong with Meowy's version. For tractability purposes, I have aligned parts of the version with my corresponding concerns. Omer182 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have responded to your comment's. 3rd-party comments are also needed. Meowy 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposal for lead section

Meowy and I have informed each other about our opinions. Meowy’s final entries give me the impression that in some points we are simply speaking past each other and in some other points we do indeed have different opinions/approaches. Nevertheless we now at least know more about each other’s position. In light of what I have observed, I think that in some points we may actually reach a consensus.

Therefore I would like to refrain from furthering this cycle of detailed responses and rather try to propose a modified wording which may provide ,at least in some points, consensus: I will propose the modifications taking the current version as the basis, taking the criticism to it in consideration and also keeping an eye on Meowy’s “praises” on his/her version . First I wish to offer explanations regarding the modifications envisioned, and then propose the complete alternative text right after the explanations:

“ It takes 86 words to introducing the location of Hemshin” issue:

The sentence “Hemshin is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region” could be shifted to the top and be integrated into the first sentence.

“ The lead is too lengthy ” issue:

Designation of the peoples who have two mother tounges, and are referred to by others with several additional designations, in 4 different alphabets does take some space. ( BTW we have neglected one of the main alphabets; namely the arabic letters used in Ottoman era and I don’t propose at this time to add that as well).

I believe the difference in nature of those designations (please refer to my more detailed elaborations in the above table regarding these differences) is important and I would like to point this out in the lead section. I do not believe it is essential to include the Khemshils and Russian and Laz but do not necessariliy object to their inclusion and keep them in the text as I feel this is Meowy’s preference.

Having the above in mind, maybe Meowy can come up with a shorter formulation.

“The Hemshin” issue:

Upon Meowy’s indication, I now see that the term “the Hemshin” is used in yet another publication: “Trekking in Turkey” on page 126, ”...is home to the Hemshin, a turkish speaking tribe...”.

Therefore I do accept now that the 2007 book “The Hemshin” is not the only case where this term comes up. I still believe that this term is used only in publications and also that it is used only in limited occasions. Therefore this term should not be mingled with names like Hemshinli/ Homshentsi.If Meowy thinks that this term must be mentioned in the lead section but he/she also agrees to my wish to differenciate it; the following proposal may be considered:

“The term “The Hemshin” is used also in some publications to refer to Hemshinli (hereto inline citations “The Hemshin” and “Trekking in Turkey”)”.

Armenian/christian issue…and “Migration from Osakan”:

I agree with the reasoning of Meowy. His/her reformulation is also acceptable with very slight changes as follows: “Most sources agree that prior to Ottoman era majority of the residents of Hemshin were Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church.” . I also agree to locate this statement earlier in the text. I further agree to take out the migration from Osakan out of the article.

Ethnicity issue:

I see we have an ongoing difference there.I have on my part no objection to delete my sentence at the end of the lead section related to “ethnicity” if that could help finding an agreement. With this assumption, I have deleted that sentence in the proposed version.

Ottoman era /islamicization/migratons issues:

I see that my last proposal does not fully satisfy Meowy but feel that at least part of his/her concerns are adressed. I will stick to that for the time being. This point obviously needs more discussion which we can have right after clearing the other points.

Proposal:

Having the above in mind my proposal for the lead section is as follows: (The statements in bold italics are those that I would be indifferent between inclusion and exclusion from the section)

The Hemshin Peoples are a number of diverse groups of people who in the past history or present have been affiliated with the Hemşin area [2][3][4] which is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. They are called (and call themselves) as Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli), Hamshenis, Homshentsi (Armenian: Համշենի) meaning resident of Hemshin (historically Hamshen) in the relevant language. [5] . Further designations are Khemshils, (Russian: Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi (სუმეხი)). [6] The term “The Hemshin” is used also in some publications to refer to Hemshinli (hereto in line citations “The Hemshin” and “Trekking in Turkey”) In 15th century, Hemshin was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. During the Ottoman period, two most important developments are migrations and Islamization. ”[8] Most sources agree that prior to Ottoman era majority of the residents of Hemshin were Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The details and the accompanying circumstances for the migrations and the Islamization process during the Ottoman era are not clearly known and documented. [13]

As a result of those developments , distinctive communities with the same generic name have also appeared in the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus. Those three communities are almost oblivious to one another's existence.[9]

The Hemshinli of Hemshin proper (also designated occasionally as western Hemshinli in publications) are Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims who mostly live in the counties (ilçe) of Çamlihemşin and Hemşin in Turkey's Rize Province.

The Hopa Hemshinli (also designated occasionally as eastern Hemshinli in publications) are Sunni Muslims and mostly live in the Hopa and Borçka counties of Turkey's Artvin Province. In addition to Turkish, they speak a dialect of western Armenian they call "Homshetsma" or "Hemşince" in Turkish.[10]

Homshentsik (also designated occasionally as Northern Homshentsik in publications) are Christians who live in Abkhazia and in Russia's Krasnodar Krai. They speak Homshetsma as well [11]. There are also some Muslim Hemshinli living in Georgia and Krasnodar[citation needed] and some Hemshinli elements amongst the Meskhetian Turks. [12] Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't yet had the time to make a properly considered reply to the above. Meowy 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hemshin in Turkey

Just to give you a little background, I am a Turkish American whose family comes from Hemsin proper, specifically from the village of Tecina/Akyamac and go back their often, given my grandmother still lives there and the fact that my parents made every effort to ensure we had strong ties to our roots and where they grew up.

I do prescribe to the fact the Hemsinli population is a mix of the original ethnic Armenians that lived there and the Turks who migrated to the area.

I do however strongly object to the following language:

"The Kemalist "Turkey for the Turks" ideology, writes Neal Ascherson, "offered no security for minorities" with "the tiny Hemşinli group having especially compelling reasons to keep its head down" because "its members are the descendants of Armenians". [54] In order to avoid accusations of "separatism" the Hemshinli are discreet and unprovocative about their own identity, taking a full but unobtrusive part in Turkish society."

The Hemsinli people are extremely patriotic. And when I mean patriotic, I mean patriotic of their Turkish nationality and heritage. They consider their Turkish identity as a source of pride. When they send their sons off to to do their army service, the celebrate this in a huge way because their sons are performing the same duties they had, and their grandfathers had, and so on. If any of the people living in our villages were to read this, they would be deeply offended. Very clearly this language was written by a scholar with their own view of events, but it unfair to attribute these feeling of ill-will upon the Hemsinli people, especially since it couldn't be farther from the truth. I would delete this paragraph in its entirity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.110.238.152 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from a credible and serious source, it can't be removed just because you or some vested-interest group doesn't like what it says. And the fate of the film-maker that is mentioned in the article and who did not "keep his head down" shows the quote has truth. The point the quote is making is not what the Hemshinli think of being Turkish, or how "Turkish" their self-identity is, it is about how the Turkish state would behave towards the Hemshinli if their distinct ethnic identity was expressed more strongly.

Although it is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly common for them to do so, academics should not pander to the beliefs, or self-interests, or dilusions, of specfic ethnic, political, or religious groups. Neither should Wikipedia articles - to do otherwise could see, for example, the page on George Bush edited to remove anything the Republican Party doesn't hold to be true, or the page on Hilter rewritten because neo-Nazis might be offended by its content, and so on for countless articles. Meowy 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

the ip number user is absolutey right that the negative propaganda about Turkey should be removed.ı don't see any credible argument put forward by meowy.Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda wars. That paragraph will be removed.Cihsai (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cihsai, I advise you to change your editing attitudes, they are not in sympathy with accepted behaviour on Wikipedia. Meowy 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to prior version before Omer's edits, he was unable to reach a consensus. VartanM (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Vartan,

I am sure you know more about the development of this entry than your unjustified move suggests.

History of the article as well as the history of the talk page, including the section which you have archieved, show clearly that my edits are in line with the wikipedia policies.

If you could not understand the development, tell me so that I can give you, once again, a summary of the development.

For the record, a brief description of where we stand is as follows:

• lead section: user meowy raised some concerns on the current version and a detailed discussion is taking place..I have proposed a new wording which may meet both our approvals...a response from meowy is yet to come (See Meowy’s response to my proposal on 18 July 2008).
• history and groups sections: The current versions are the result of a development through which objections regarding use of weasel words and lack of inline citations were adressed... specific arguments against the current versions or meaningful proposals for further development are as of today not put forward.

Those three sections are the ones I have dealt with since I started contributing.

If you have anything to contribute, do so in proper manner. Do not attempt to nullify months of editing and discussion with artificial pretexts.

BTW, note that this section of the discussion page is devoted (by another user) to the section of the article about the “ Hemshin in Turkey” (which I had not yet touched, but will probably start contributing to the discussion). By putting your comments related to my earlier edits in this part of the talk page, you have also actually disrupted the ongoing discussion related to this section. Note that this amounts to “messing up” of the talk page.Omer182 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, not one user supports the version of the article you created. You do not own the article and have not established consensus for any of the controversial changes you added without receiving support. I reverted yet again to a version free of your modifications. Instead of contnuing edit warring with multiple users, I suggested before that you initiate an RFC to see if anyone within the wiki community supports your version. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eupator,

This is the third time you have engaged in such a wholesale revert, which takes the entry back to a much earlier version (to a version prior to 9 October 2007). It is interesting that you have not written a single word so far in the talk page related to the content of the entry.

As you know, the basic principles of Wikipedia are to engage in good-faith discussions before major edits and presenting information based on reliable sources. This is the place for discussion. Given that you are eager to revert the article to a much earlier version, removing the fully referenced lead, history and groups sections, I invite you to join the discussion by answering the below:

1- What exactly do you find incorrect related to the lead section? Do you have anything to add in addition to what Meowy has raised in our discussion? What do you think of the proposal I have raised in response to feedback from Meowy?

2- What exactly do you find incorrect related to the (fully referenced) history section you have removed. Be specific! Tell the contributors which statements need to be modified (and why)?

3-Same questions for the groups section…

Note that if you deny answering these questions in reasonable manner, it either means that you try to avoid discussion, or that you simply are not interested in the subject and do not have sufficient knowledge to share. In either case refrain from blind reverts.Omer182 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I am travelling, I will probably not be able to contribute anything more to this discussion for about a month. Sorry. Meowy 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Namsos, please read my entries above adressed to Vartan (3 August 2008) and Eupator (4 August 2008).Omer182 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peoples!

Are the Hemshin PeopleS? I think they are ethnic group and the article's nane have to be changed! Jingby (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition of what is an ethnic group is debatable - and there are several distinct subgroups amongst the Hemshinli which have their own self-defining name, so 'peoples' is an acurate term I think. 'Hemshin' has been discussed - I think it is suitable because it is language neutral - used by none of the sub-groups, but used in academic literature. Meowy 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

About the Protect

Khoikhoi,

I want to clarify some issues regarding the development of the Hemshin Peoples article, which you have recently placed under full protection.

Before going into the details, let me first state that I find it unfourtunate that you have actually protected the version which was implemented by means of unjustified wholesale reverts (taking the entry back to its version almost a year ago, with no discussions or justifications), rather than the version which was actually developed through a completely Wikipedia edit policies complient process (as I detail below). Such a protection punishes edit policies encouraged by wikipedia while rewarding those actually discouraged by it.

Here is a brief overview of the development phases of this entry in the last year (All of the below will be verified if one has a brief look at the talk page and its archive).

• Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007 (almost a year ago!). Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on the archieve for the talk 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.

• I have edited three sections of the article (lead section, history section and groups sections) in this manner.

• After a brief period of blind revert attacks (which were also exposed to admin Alex Bakharev), detailed discussions started to take place between me and user Meowy on 10 June 2008. During these discussions, I have also tried to involve admin Alex Bakharevi hoping that we can have a disciplined and productive discussion with his presence. Even though he has dissappeared after a brief involment, a (more or less meaningful) discussion has started to take shape and it is an ongoing one to this day…Meowy’s temporal absence has temporarily halted the discussions, for the time being.

The current state of the discussion can be summarized as follows (Recall that my edits are confined to lead, history and groups sections):

1)Meowy has placed a number of fact tags and weasel word warnings in the history and groups sections. To satisfy his/her request, I have implemented various content and wording changes in these sections and posted a fully referenced text. I feel that Meowy is still not comforable with the text, never the less he/she has not raised any specific objections to the history and groups sections.

2) Our discussion with Meowy then focused on the lead section more recently (starting on 4 July 2008), whereby we provided detailed feedback about each others versions for it (See table comparisons on talk page)

3) I have then raised a proposal on the talk page which might meet both our approval (see my entry on talk page dated 10 July 2008, under the heading "new proposal for lead section"). User Meowy has not yet commented on the proposal, also indicating later on that he/she will not be able to do so for a while since he/she will be absent for a month (See Meowy's statements on talk page on 18 July and 4 August 2008).

• Starting on 3 August 2008, several users, one after the other, have started to engage in wholesale reverts, taking the entry back to its version prior to 9 October 2007, undermined several months of discussion, and editing . They removed therewith also fully referenced information. None of these users (except for VartanM), has been involved in the discussions mentioned above and they do not have any contributions to the entry (except their recent – repeated- wholesale reverts ). They basically kept wholesale reverting the article with no specific reasons.

• I have invited them for discussion several times (see for example my entries on the talk page dated 3,4 and 7 August 2008). They completely avoided discussion.

• Since I could not get a single word relating to the content of the article from them, I was forced to undo their unjustified reverts

Given this situation, I hope you agree with my statement at the beginning , namely that you have actually protected the entry under a version which was implemented by means of wholesale reverts, rather than the version which was actually developed through a completely Wikipedia edit policies complient process. Such a protection punishes edit policies encouraged by wikipedia while rewarding those actually discouraged by it. Consequently, I kindly request that you remove the protection or, if you believe protection is necessary, keep the version dated 9 August 2008 (15.52), which I think is the legitimate one, as the protected version.Omer182 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point abut protecting a page is not to take sides - so taking the page back to a version before any of the current edits by any of the contesting editors took place is the probably best option for now. I can't contribute any suggestions for content at the moment, but I still consider your final version to be confusing and almost unreadable. The current protected version is at least free from those defects, though obviously it omits much recently added information. I hope that you realise that unless you are willing to compromise somewhat and let other editors actually add material (as opposed to you immediately erasing their added material and then sometimes adding it again, rewritten to suit your POV) then there isn't going to be much hope that this entry will be unprotected anytime soon. Meowy 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"so taking the page back to a version before any of the current edits by any of the contesting editors took place" - It already is. The current version existed before any of the currently involved parties began editing the article, including you and Omer who now believes he owns the article. This is the point from which one needs to start working. The only legitimate point Omer has made is that when he first began implementing his unacceptable changes he faced no opposition, of course that doesn't justify it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been unprotected by the admin who had protected it earlier. The users who had repeatedly reverted the entry in a wholesale manner had not put forward any arguments for their reverts. They also refused to take part in a mediation. I have now put the entry back to its gradually evolved, fully referenced version. I now hope that we will be able to have a meaningful discussion and editing process in the future.Omer182 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you call a "gradually evolved, fully referenced version" is actually mostly just your personal version of what you want the content of this entry to be. Meaningful discussion and (more importantly) some sort of stable version for this entry is only going to be possible if you admit other editors into the process and stop trying to monopolise the editing and the content. Meowy 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. He doesn't seem to get it. As I have said before, I'm willing to work with him on a sentence by sentence basis. But his rewrite of this article is unacceptable. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Request

I have just filed a mediation request for this entry which you can reach here. Please note that the involved parties need to approve within 7 days if they want to pursue this path. Omer182 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

No notice was placed here that this image has been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to proper discussion and editing... The lead section

I have been following this article for some time now and have observed the discussion between omer182 and meowy; the blind revert attacks / protection/unprotection and again blind reverts. I see now (and hope) that the reverting squad may have changed mind. Eupator's statement to discuss each sentence is also promising.
I hope ı will myself take more part.
The discussion between omer182 and meowy was interrupted on the lead section.I propose to get on with that section.Omer182 had proposed a new wording mid July. I favor that new proposal rather than the now standing one.I propose not to include the first alternative sentence in that proposal but to include the other two.Cihsai (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If you prefer the new proposal it is ok with me. As I said before, I am indifferent between the inclusion or exclusion of the statements in italics.Omer182 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So I see we have started again (sigh). Meowy 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Present situation...... Hemshin in Turkey

This section needs a reorganisation in various aspects.
To start with ı want to come back to the editing and discussion early august regarding the first two paragraphs.
The real subject of those two paragraphs seem to be the use of Hemşince (Homshetsi) in the cultural life of Turkey at present as well as the artists involved. So far no problem. But the wording is such that instead of supplying objective info about the topic , this section serves to criticise Turkey in a biased manner. Whether it is biased or not is actually of secondary importance…This article is not the arena for that.
The facts related to the subject, namely use of Hemşince in cultural life at present are the following:
Özcan Alper is a film director. His first impact was the short film Momi in Hemşince which was shown in the İstanbul Film Festival in 2001. His first long movie , "Sonbahar (Autumn) has won the prestigious Altın Koza Best Movie Prize in 2008. This work is also related to the Hopa Hemşin region and Hemşince is used. Pop singers Kazım Koyuncu (deceased 2007) and Gökhan Birben have used folksongs in Hemşince in their Works.
ı propose to reword the first two paragraphs in line with the above and delete the stuff about the turkısh politicsCihsai (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Cihsai. Your words clarify your purpose here, it is good to get that out into the open at the start. Meowy 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you also Meowy, for your appreciation. I must confess that ı don't quite see how ı deserved it; but always nice to receive "thanks" and suport Cihsai (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

YOu have misunderstood my words a bit. I was happy that you were not hiding your purpose but were up front about it - However, I was not happy about your purpose. The impact that the film Momi made is important to this article. The fate of the director should remain in the article because it indicates the limits the Turkish state wanted placed (at the time of the film's release) on the public expression of Hemshinli ethnicity. To say that to do this "serves to criticise Turkey in a biased manner" has as much sense as the attitudes of those who accused Alper of committing a terrorist act by merely making a non-political film. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that we have a difference...i hope we can clear it by discussion.
Before we enter into content let me observe Meowy, that you have inserted the wording in question without first proposing it and therefore without giving the possibility of discussion. You see that ı am not happy with the wording. Back and forth reverting is rather ugly...can you please delete your own entry and discuss it first?? alternatively you could agree provisionally with my proposal, which is surely also in your opinion not wrong but incomplete..we could discuss what you consider incomplete and perhaps reach a mutual understanding....Please consider those suggestions Cihsai (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to propose adding material when that material is well sourced, has proper citations, and is on-topic. And the material has been on the page for many months. It is you who have to come up with valid reasons to remove the material, and then get consensus that those reasons are valid. Saying it "serves to criticise Turkey in a biased manner" is not a valid reason, it is just your opinion. Meowy 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposing wording before adding may not be a must but it is civil and helpful for reasonable editing. You have seen that ı disagree the material to be " on-topic " ...so it does not make sense for you to justify your wording once again with what is on debate. The citations you mention are also problematic ..ı will come to that if and when we can create a discussion enviroment....I still hope that you are somewhat different than the reverting squad who seem to have been reactivated just now and kindly ask you to reconsider my offer : let us first discuss before putting material into the article. I repeat that the wording ı have suggested can not be evaluated to be wrong (as they are mere plain facts) Let it stay and lets discuss what you consider is missing there Cihsai (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cihsai, the material you are objecting to has been in the article for some 6 months. I'm not going to restrospectively propose its insertion because it is valid content: it contains facts that are on-topic (they are about the Hemshinli) and that are supported by references. Are you disgreeing with those facts? I don't think so. Are you saying the references are invalid? Again I don't think so. Are you saying that the material gives undue weight to one viewpoint? If you were, and gave examples to back up your claim, then that would be a proper reason. But just saying it "serves to criticise Turkey in a biased manner" isn't a reason. Neither is saying it is not "on-topic" without explaining why. Meowy 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, let us first clarify the past development: You have inserted the wording,which i object to,on 18-21 June; not earlier. It was put without prior discussion. Thereafter there were several total reverts ; so your material vanished as well at intervals; somehow as “collateral damage”. At an interval, where the article was on its uptodate version, on 17 July, your added material was objected to by a ip user (who identified himself to be an Hemshinli American). I myself agreed with him and deleted the wording in question on 19 july. You reverted on 20 july, finding my deletion not to be in line with wikipedia policies. Hereafter was again a period of revert attacks by a group of users and Omer182’s reinstatements; ending up in a protection of the article suiting the purpose of the attacks, i.e your material was again “collateral damage”. The protection was lifted on 8 september. I have placed a proposal on 22 september and, receiving no objections but thanks from you (which I obviously misinterpreted), have edited the article accordingly. This edit lived a couple of hours until being reverted by yourself.
For whatever it is worth: the wording in question is new (in netto terms), is put there without prior discussion and is controversial.
I see that wikpedia policies do not bindingly require prior discussion (but encourage it ) and consequently allow also deletions and reverts (within limits i hope)
Let us try to ease the path to a editing without unilateral deletions and reverts.Having all the above in mind, my proposal to you was and is to use the following wording:
″Hemşince″ in turkish cultural life
Hemşince (Homshetsi) was first used in a motion picture in the short film Momi (Grandma) by Özcan Alper which was shown in the İstanbul Film Festival in 2001. Alper's first long movie ”Sonbahar″ (Autumn) has won the prestigious Altın Koza Best Movie Prize in 2008. This work is also related to the Hopa Hemşin region and Hemşince is used.Pop singers Kazım Koyuncu (deceased 2007) and Gökhan Birben have used folksongs in Hemşince in their Works
These are uptodate plain facts and there can be no controversy.
Obviously you consider this to be incomplete. Your wording includes further the elements that the ”Kemalist” Turkey is depressing the Hemshinli in general and has created diffuculties to the film director in particular. You are by all means entilted to learn why I would object to such statements. I believe I had eloborated on that but it has obviously not satisfed you. I am willing to discuss it further with you and maybe we can come to an understandig. During that discussion, it would be nice to have a wording in the article which is not objected to. So please reconsider this proposal. Cihsai (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That section of the article exists to describe the Hemshinli in Turkey and their current status. I did not invent those quotes, they are from credible, scholarly works, and they deal with the subject of that section of the article. It is important to say that the director of the first movie made using the Hemshin dialect was accused of committing a terrorist offense just for making that film. It shows that incidents have happened proving that what the quotes are saying exists in reality. Meowy 20:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, you obviously have not agreed to my proposal about the "method", namely that we first put what is not controversial and carry on the discussion of the controversial part.You wish to stick to the controversial wording which you have inserted without discussion. Your last comment indicates that your main purpose is not to provide info on cultural activities of the Hopa Hemşinli/use of Hemşince but to establish that Turkey is depressing its people.
From your various contributions ı understand that you are to a certain degree aware of the situation in Turkey and have been to there and have also read something on Hemşin. Consequently ı am sure you know that the two paragraphs at the start of the section “Hemshinli in Turkey” does not communicate a true set of info to users who would read this section.
Nevertheless, let me assume that you beleive these paragaraphs reflect a true picture and state my objections.
To start with, I take the first paragaraph.
-The referenced book is not a specific work on Hemshin or Hemshinli or the more or less greater region where the Hemshinli live.
-On the contrary it covers the total periphery of the Blacksea, touching historical episodes as distant as Herodotus. (i.e coverage of a great geography ,milliones of people and thousands of years and that within 275 pages)
-The author allocates merely several sentences to Hemshinli (which he calls a tiny group of 20000 people) and therein states that they are descendants of Armenians and that this is reason enough to to keep heads down. No argumentation, analysis or even reference provided.
-The Author is a journalist without any specific interest in the area let alone the Hemshinli. See here.
Therefore this publication can not be considered to be a reliable source for this particular entry which gives detailed info about the Hemşinli.The opinion of an author, who is not even an expert, can not be reflected as the factual truth Cihsai (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting to do some whitewashing. That quote is backed up by (and in turn backs up) the Rudiger Benninghaus source (which you also want removed). The chapter in "The Hemshin" by Benninghaus gives a lot more info about the limits the Turkish state has put on the public expression of Hemshinli identity and about the propaganda produced to rewrite their origins, so it is pointless to try and get the Ascherton quote removed - it is in agreement with everything Benninghaus writes. And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors". If you feel that that section of the article is too negative then why not add more content, but don't expect properly referenced material to be removed just because you don't like what it is telling. Meowy 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, your statement [And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors”] is insulting and seems to reflect deplorable hatred against a nation. Your statement [You are attempting to do some whitewashing] is unpolite besides being wrong . You should refrain from using such agressive language.
Even when you don’t use such expressions in the future,which i strongly hope, it is a pity if you really think like that. Such a mindset makes it nearly hopeless to have a fruitful discussion.
Nevertheless ı will try to do my best:
Please notice that in my argumentation on 20 Oct. ı have not declared that Mr. Neal Ascherson is uncredible as a person or that his works cannot be used as sources in general.. ı have explained why we should not use this book and the opinion of the author expressed therein (statements you want to include into the article) in this specific WP Article. You have not produced any counterargument to my specific explanations. Cihsai (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You did declare Ascherson to be not credible, you said his words were not "the factual truth" and that his book "can not be considered to be a reliable source". So I commented on how, in the real world, the public perception of his writings would compare to the perception of writings produced by academics in Turkey, who seem to regularly prostitute themselves and their profession. However, this is not the place to discuss the standards of many Turkish academics. The facts are that the source exists, its author is credible and well-respected, and the essential truth of the quote is confirmed by the follow-on information about the fate of the film maker. There is additional material in the chapter by Rudiger Benninghaus in the book "The Hemshin" which would confirm that truth even more. I did not use that aditional information because I did not want that part of the article to become too long or concentrate too much on those negative aspects of the Turkish state's attitudes to minorities. But I could expand the article to include some of that additional information. Meowy 16:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

your thinking about Turks,Turkey,turkish institutions are of no interest to me.I have to take you as a discussion partner because this is wikipedia. Try to behave accordingly.
To close the discussion on the quotation from Ascherson one last remark: I am positive that you are actually capable of understanding what you read . i cannot explain how you could reduce my statement:
“Therefore this publication can not be considered to be a reliable source for this particular entry which gives detailed info about the Hemşinli.The opinion of an author, who is not even an expert, can not be reflected as the factual truth”
to a mere
“ascherson is uncredible”
You have not produced any specific counterargument to my specific arguments. You kept on repeating that the statements of Asherson are confirmed by the other reference (Benninghaus) and vice versa. So now ı present my comments on that part of the circle, namely the second paragraph of your controversial entry:

For convenience i quote the controversial part here: “As a result, Alper was accused in the Court for State Security of producing material intended to destroy the unity of the state, under article 8 of Turkey's anti-terror law. This law was repealed in 2003 after EU pressure, and Alper's trial did not go ahead.″The reference given is a article of Benninghaus.In that article Benninghaus reports that a trial was opened against Alper.He bases that info on personal communication with Alper.

- The existance of a courtcase cannot be proven depending on personal communication; therefore Benninghaus'es report cannot be reflected as factual truth in Wikipedia (even if Benninghaus would be a wonderful person).
- Benninghaus does not give details about the charges and evidence.(If that courtcase was opened without any trace except for personal info).So it is a mere opinion /speculation of the author as to why that trial was opened. This opinion cannot be presented as factual truth in wikipedia.
- Filing a courtcase is not a ultimate step, what matters is the verdict. Pending such verdict one cannot draw conclusions except for political analysis. This article is not the place for it.
- The trial (if filed) did not proceed becuse the related law was changed.
- Benninghaus correctly states that this is “Due to the requirements of membership in the European community” You have translated it to “after EU pressure″. Why and how a country changes its laws , whether the laws are good or bad, are not to be discussed in this wikipedia article. Just for your personal education the following: It is Turkey who wants to join EU. This because Turkey acknowledges that EU standarts (also in democracy and humanrights) are superior to those prevailing in Turkey. Consequently Turkey has changed a great deal of legislation and is in process of further changes.
- We are writing now end of 2008. We do not know for sure whether there was a court case , if yes on what grounds and what would be the result. But we do know that Alper has continued to be fruitful and has won a prestigous prize.
It would be beneficial for clarification if you would adress those points individually. Cihsai (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to continue wasting your time, be my guest. However, your attempts at whitewashing will still not succeed - the information stays, and I now intend to expand on it. You have a serious misunderstanding about the use of sources, and about the way books are written. You also have a serious underestimation of my understanding of Turkish society. Meowy 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, the odds od two spa's on such an obscure article as this are slim to none. A checkuser is in order.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they are probably different people but connected in a real world way. I knew Omer182 wasn't a normal editor once he began using (or rather misusing) Simonian's "The Hemshin", it is an expensive and hard to find book that only a specialist library is likely to have, such as a university dealing with middle-eastern subjects or a university actually in Turkey. Meowy 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, is destruction all you are capable of? You don't suffice with disrupting the article with your destructive reverts, you also add nonsense inbetween a communication on content. You can share your phantasies with your buddies on your or their talk pages...so, keep away from this page until you have something to say on content...(Besides, don't delete warnings you receive to correct your attitude from your talk page) Cihsai (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On reverting

Simply reverting does not provide any information to other editors about what they can do to improve an article. This is not a requirement, but a suggestion: please don't revert this article (except obvious vandalism, like the word "penis") without providing an explanation here on the talk page. Then, discuss any disagreements in good faith. If you cannot agree on acceptable content formulation, seek mediation. I am watching the article now, and am ready to investigate if somebody is stonewalling. I'd rather not employ sanctions, but I will if the situation requires them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the AGF in mind, other editors aren't trying to improve the article. We have repeatedly told Omer that he need to discuss the changes, instead he ignores us and reverts to his version, and if its not him its a SPA that does it for him. I would like to ask them one more time that if they want to change the article they must reach a consensus first. Drastically changing the whole article and then pushing for their own version is not going to work and is going to create endless edit wars, which no one likes. Now I welcome Omer to start discussing his proposed changes one section at a time. VartanM (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you all go to mediation and try to sort out these content disagreements. Stonewalling is not an acceptable editing strategy. I notice that you often revert "no consensus". I notice that Omer 182 does a lot of reverting also, and Eupator occasionally participates in the slow simmer edit war. Why don't you three work out your differences and just leave the articles alone until you are satisfied. Mediation will reveal whether the parties are negotiating in good faith, or not. If you think somebody is stonewalling, mediation is a great strategy for you, because the mediator will see the stonewalling, and can refer the case to arbitration or arbitration enforcement. At that point, the party who is stonewalling will be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you mediate a WP:OWN issue? It's not your run of the mill content dispute.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You assume good faith and make an attempt at mediation. If this content dispute is not resolved by mediation, the focus will turn to behavioral issues, such as tendentious editing, POV pushing, and stonewalling. I suspect several editors might get banned from this page and related pages if that happens. Are you sure you want to risk that? What exactly is the harm in going to mediation with an open mind? Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediate what? It never got to a point when content could be discussed. Mediation is for content disputes. We have a single purpose account engaged in POV-pushing and tendentious editing. That one editor, Omer, has been camping on this article in violation of WP:OWN, he has been using bad sources and has been misinterpreting good sources. User Meowy attempted to wotk with him for a year, that produced no result as evident on this page. I rather not take this to arbitration for a single user but that might be the only choice left. The proper way to handle this without ArbCom is to identify problems with the article, build consensus on the talkpage, and proceed with cleanup as user Moewy attempted. I have no intention to engage in the same futile task when I can clearly see that the last attempt was stonewalled for a whole YEAR. Despite that I offered a compromise solution, to work on the article on a sentence by sentence basis starting with an earlier clean version as a start point but that was rejected by the SPA.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need arbitration. There is an existing case called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 that covers this article. You can request enforcement any time at WP:AE with a short presentation and a selection of diffs, if indeed there are behavioral problems. Why must you revert to the year ago version. Why not start from the wrong version (in your view) and negotiate changes section by section, with or without the help of a mediator? Saying, "He's bad, I won't discuss" does not really help your cause. You need to show good faith, and then if he stonewalls, you can file a report and everyone will see the truth of the matter. Right now, it appears to me that both sides might be stonewalling. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in order to have a content issue, there must be some argumentation on both sides. User VartanM (along with 3 others- , Eupator, Namsos and MarshallBagramyan ) is engaged solely in wholesale reverts. These users have not added anything to the discussions, they have only got involved through these reverts. They have denied discussion and also rejected my mediation request. Therefore, considering this as a user conduct issue, I have brought up this issue (on occasion of Eupator’s latest wholesale revert) in WP:AE, relating to AA2 arbitration case.

Let me also say that there has been a content issue between me and user Meowy. Any mention of stonewalling and/or ownership can only be considered within that discussion. In this context, please note the following:

1) My edits so far are confined to the lead, history and groups sections of the entry (First 3 sections).

2) My initial edits have been significantly modified through discussions with Meowy, who has complained about lack of citations in the history section and a number of things regarding the lead section.

3) Meowy (or any other editor) have not voiced any specific complaints regarding the most recent versions of the history or groups sections (they are both fully referenced). I and Meowy had a detailed discussion about the lead section (Please see table comparisons above) and I made a proposal which I thought addresses a majority of the complaints raised by Meowy (not all). I asked for Meowy's feedback. No feedback was available for two months.

A brief look at the talk page would be sufficient to clearly see that I have taken every opportunity to discuss things, and actually I followed a procedure of "first propose then insert". I have invited admins to get involved so that some sort of disciplined discussion enviroment can be setup. I have great difficulty in understanding how I can still be accused of "owning" or "stonewalling". Why would a stonewalling editor invite admins or request mediation, or make proposals before implementation?

I would really appreciate if these statements can be confirmed by an admin who can take the time to go through the discussions on this talk page; be it in a mediation process or not. Omer182 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good. You seem to have done the right thing by posting to WP:AE. An admin will surely look through the page. You may be able to expedite the process if you go through the history and pull a selection of diffs showing where you invited conversation. Also present diffs showing that your edits follow Wikipedia's content policies with regard to neutrality and verifiability. You obviously can't pull diffs showing lack of response. Do also provide diffs showing the wholesale reverts you allege. If you can provide the necessary evidence, and admin is much more likely to take action on your request. Remember, argumentation is not evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now posted a comprehensive section on my talk page where the diffs Jehochman asked for are provided. Please see section "Presentation of evidence as recommended by Jehochman" on my talk page. Omer182 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you presenting any evidence about anything other than everyone disagreeing with your POV-pushing (reinsertion of wholesale changes). You have totally ignored my documentation restricted on the intro, exactly the way you have ignored and changed subjects when relevant criticism were levelled against your edits, shows that you are not even interested in changing your disruptive behaviour.

Besides, if checkusers shows fruitless (won't be the first time it fails to find the obvious), here’s some intriguing information. Your first edit on Wikipedia was on November 6, 2006, you create your user page by adding several templates. We'd believe you know how to edit and even adding few templates. You then left this account alone until February 3, 2006 where you test how to post in discussion boards. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. After making those edits, two hours later Cihsai appears for the first time on English Wikipedia. Does this, then thought it was not enough, he erases all of your testing here, then continue testing, what you have started two hour before. Again [10], [11], [12].

I am not continuing but there’s cases like when you proposed your major changes just after Chihsai started criticising the article. The timing and the fact that both of you have that book appears to be more than a coincidence. Before stoning other users with such 'evidence' page you should ask yourself why that suspicion against you, and also why does every other user revert you to begin with. I'll stop here, since we are not on your talkpage. - Fedayee (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Omer 182 that the wholesale reverts by the group of 4 should be differenciated from the discussions (or attempts of discussions) with Meowy. I beleive we are now experiencing the fourth wave of those reverts. Jehochman's advice to Omer182 will help clarify the history of those reverts. The wholesale reverts of the group of four are destructive and must somehow be prevented.
The discussions on this article were predominantly between Meowy and Omer182 regarding the first three sections. I have followed it.I have not interfered in order not to further complicate a discussion which was obviously already not easy. I have never reverted or backreverted the whole article or the related sections.Meowy is silent on those sections for some months now although it is obvious from some of his remarks on other occasions that he is not happy with the last version.
Instead, Meowy added some material to another section without prior proposal or discussion . I am presently trying to conduct a discussion with him on those additions.In his latest response to my arguments he stated “If you want to continue wasting your time, be my guest. However, your attempts at whitewashing will still not succeed - the information stays, and I now intend to expand on it.”This demonstrates his way of discussion and examples like that are amply present throuhout the history of this talkpage. Amazingly the same Meowy accuses others with “ownership”.
Having all this in mind I think that a mediation or a supervision of the discussion will be very suitable and maybe the only hope for a meaningful discussion and editing process.
Consequently, i strongly support the idea of mediation thru which we three can discuss and edit properly.
In case the reverting squad would decide to present arguments and proposals for a change, they would be welcome to join the discussion as well. Cihsai (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cihsai, let me explain. Rightly or wrongly I am treating you like I treat those editors who come to mainstream Armenia-related subjects in order to whitewash history or insert false information. In most cases, such individuals will continue with their campaign even though their "contributions" are inevitably reverted. As an alternative to endless reverting, and in the believe that those editors know their attempted insertions are false, I simply tell them that if the continue, I will include in the article even more of the truthful information that they wish excluded. In other words, if they continue their actions will lead to the exact opposite of their initial goal. It's a response that seems to have worked with a number of editors. I know that you editing history has been fairly restrained and probably does not justify a close comparison to those editors. However, I think what you have been proposing to do to this article is similar to their style of edits. Meowy 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, you frankly exposed how you “treat” me. For me, AGF is not only a WP policy but a essential principal in any discussion, also in real life. That is, if a result from the discussion is to be expected. When one believes to be able to read the mind of the other, the discussion degenerates into a meaningless battle of words. I therefore always try to clean up my mind from my own uncontrolled “mind readings” in the course of the discussion and try to concentrate on the spoken or written word. Consequently ı DON’T treat you as one of those who try to scatter dirt everywhere.
If you could accept my approach for some time and we could concentrate on logical arguments and published knowledge and WP policies, we could perhaps find agreements. At least we can identify what we disagree on. Beliefs on “dirt scattering” or “whitewashing “ is not helpful.
Your experience in other articles are of no interest to me. In general ı despise of threats. Cihsai (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying it as it is. I believe you are trying to do some whitewashing of the article's content. I am not doing "mind readings". My opinion is based only on what you have been trying to do here, on the material you have been trying to remove from the article. AFG has obvious limits, i.e., it stops if evidence starts to show an editor is not acting in good faith. Good faith requires an editor to put the accuracy of the article above all else, even if that accurate content "serves to criticise Turkey". Meowy 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you know what i'm trying to do without reading my mind because for you it is proven whitewashing if somebody disagrees with what you believe to be the truth. There is a specific term to describe this way of thinking . What was it?? In real life we would not bother to carry on with this discussion. You would not care to discuss further with a whitewasher and i would not give a damn to try to persuade somebody who thinks like that. Problem is that we are here on Wikipedia, where we at least have to try to agree. Here my advice to you is once more to overcome yourself and cease for some time to believe i am a whitewasher and pretend to believe that i really mean what i write.(AGF). This may enable you to respond to my arguments rather than repeating what you believe.I don't know what we otherwise can do. You probably don't expect me to change my opinion just because you feel like it.In case this article is saved from the revert attacks, which kill all the editing ,(including your's),i will do something about it. I don't wish to complicate this situation with new inputs and deletions and reverts on these two paragraphs while this nonsense is going on. Until then, and unless you produce arguments, i will not waste my time anymore.I underline my disagreement to your additions to the section "Hemşinli in Turkey". I have presented arguments for my objection whereas you have not presented counterarguments. Cihsai (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The way Omer is working over this article looks mysteriously exactly the way OttomanReference and his several socks have worked on several articles over the years. If I am mistaken, I apologise, but this way of changing entire articles, and attempting to enforce them (see OttomanReference several socks on, for example in the past, the Armenian Genocide). Not only the behaviour, but also the grammar. Some probably remember when OttomanReference was reverted and another user appeared out of the blue supporting him the way Cihsai came.

Jehochman, you are with good intentions, but your proposition on starting with the wrong version does not make sense. The obvious purpose of the changes is to muddy the obvious reality that Hemshin are Armenians, and push the criticism and labelling it as propaganda to remove it. This suspicious SPA Cihsai already admitted such a purpose previously: the ip number user is absolutely right that the negative propaganda about Turkey should be removed.ı don't see any credible argument put forward by meowy.Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda wars. That paragraph will be removed. [13]

When Ips appears, SPA appears in such an obscure article with the good timing to support a fullscale change of very dubious nature it's truly questionable. Meowy did report the extent of the problem with Omer’s changes, he did not go deep enough, as those who know the subject will understand some of the core changes purposes which are far from being good faithed. - Fedayee (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee:

• Regarding your first paragraph, you are wrong. Please bring this issue in the right platform and initiate an investigation, instead of speculation.

• This is the first time you appear on this page. If you want to contribute join the discussion rather than starting speculations. You might consider reading my comment above (20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)) and see how this article evolved. Taking it back to a year ago does require some detailed reasoning as the text is fully referenced. Yo seem to believe you are one of "those who know the subject", then I guess you might be willing to provide such reasoning.Omer182 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee,I have noticed that you mentioned me.
First in connection with “Ottomanreference”: Be informed that i was never on that article....yet.
Then you called me a ”suspicious SPA″. This is not nice. I call upon you and all those with your mindset,(several have appeared in this talkpage),to follow Omer182's advice and file your suspicions in the proper page. Stop scattering bits of your phantasies to this talkpage.
The quotation you got from my comment is correct. It was in relation to Meowy's unproposed and undiscussed addition to the section "Present situation". What is wrong with that comment? You can join in the discussion on that section which i am trying to hold since some time. Meowy did not have any arguments to present. You can assist him there. Cihsai (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My logic is quite simple. If there is a content dispute, good faith editors will use dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, rather than edit warring to resolve differences of opinion. Those who repeatedly revert are edit warring. Note that edit warring does not have any exemptions for editors who are "correct" (there are exemptions for vandalism). Those who use edit warring to control tendentious editing may get sanctioned, even if they are right about content issues. Instead of edit warring, please present evidence of tendentious editing in the appropriate forum, which in this case is arbitration enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this entry to its current version by undoing VartanM's wholesale revert. I hope Jehochman's recommendations will be observed and a renewed wholesale revert will not take place. I have started to prepare the evidence recommended by him. This will include a.o. a comprehensive history of the wholesale reverts including but not limited to the diffs I have already provided in connection my appeal to WP:AE regarding user Eupator( here).Omer182 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, your logic does not take into account that dispute resolution mechanisms regarding Armenian-related issues have long failed. Disruptive users seem to be able to survive 2 Arbcom rulings here on Wikipedia before any real and productive action is actually taken against these kinds of users.

Since you can be considered ‘fresh blood' when dealing, as an admin, with concerns that arise from these topics, I am willing to show you how Omer’s edits are bad faithed only by taking his intro and cutting it piece by piece.

The Hemshin Peoples are a number of diverse groups of people who in the past history or present have been affiliated with the Hemşin area [2][3][4] which is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. They are called (and call themselves) as Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli), Hamshenis, Homshentsi (Armenian: Համշենի) meaning resident of Hemshin (historically Hamshen) in the relevant language. The names in several languages goes first, it has become common practice here on Wikipedia to do this. How many times was this said to Omer? Did he change it? No, he reverted the whole thing. He ignored what the other party had to say.

The term "The Hemshin" is used also in some publications to refer to Hemshinli [6][7]. In 15th century, Hemshin was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. During the Ottoman period, two most important developments are migrations and Islamization. [8] He removed the fact that most agree that they are originally Armenians. You will see how the explicit information was removed from the lead.

Most sources agree that prior to Ottoman era majority of the residents of Hemshin were Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Reading this, you would tend to believe that he read the thing. Wrong, them being Armenian is implicit there, as several groups including Caucasian Albanians, some Assyrian groups in the East, some Christian Kurds and Turks were also from the Armenian Apostolic Church. The initial information which was replaced was the following: It is generally accepted that the Hemshin were Armenian in origin, and were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but over the centuries they have evolved into a distinctive ethnic group in their own right. As you can see, he deliberately removed the first part about them being of Armenian origin.

The details and the accompanying circumstances for the migrations and the Islamization process during the Ottoman era are not clearly known and documented. [9] The process of assimilation of the population in that region is well documented. This information is partly true and it is being clean Ottoman legacy therefore it has no place there, at least with that wording.

Now see what is about to come, and tell me if is good faithed.

As a result of those developments , distinctive communities with the same generic name have also appeared in the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus. Those three communities are almost oblivious to one another's existence.[10]

The Hemshinli of Hemshin proper (also designated occasionally as western Hemshinli in publications) are Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims who mostly live in the counties (ilçe) of Çamlihemşin and Hemşin in Turkey's Rize Province. Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims, the article was actually about those Hemshinli, which are said here to be Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims, which removes any information about their Armenian dialect, and them being originally Armenians. See the ill faithed addition in the lead, and as the first groupd presented which happens to be the main group.

The Hopa Hemshinli (also designated occasionally as eastern Hemshinli in publications) are Sunni Muslims and mostly live in the Hopa and Borçka counties of Turkey's Artvin Province. In addition to Turkish, they speak a dialect of western Armenian they call "Homshetsma" or "Hemşince" in Turkish.[11] You would agree with me, I hope, that this too is not a good faithed addition. In addition to Turkish, some Armenian dialect. No information is given that they are actually Armenian. The reader would think that they just know some Armenian dialect, like an English American knows some Spanish.

Homshentsik (also designated occasionally as Northern Homshentsik in publications) are Christians who live in Abkhazia and in Russia's Krasnodar Krai. They speak Homshetsma as well [12]. There are also some Muslim Hemshinli living in Georgia and Krasnodar[citation needed] and some Hemshinli elements amongst the Meskhetian Turks. [13] The same criticism goes here.

The entire modification by Omer on the entire article is controversial, and I will not bother presenting them here, as his changes on the intro should suffice (even though explicit evidences of misconduct, content based, never seem to be of any significance to Admins most of the time). Omer’s intentions on this article are clear, and it is to muddy the reality that Hemshins are Armenians, by replacing explicit statements to this fact by implicit affirmation which would mislead those who read the article.

You want us to report misconduct in the arbitration enforcement, which in our situation most of the time has proven to be fruitless. The fact is that Omer’s changes contain so much controversial information without discussion (that's why I compared him to OttomanReference, who would do just that)… then he wonders why they have been reverted. This is not simple edit warring, this goes against WP:OWN, Omer has gone to make very very questionable edits of very dubious nature in the whole of the article, and worst changes, where it matters the most, the intro. In any sort of mediation, it is custom to return on status-quo and work from there. Omer has no respect for the work of the previous editors of the article, he answers to others’ justifications with a blind ear without showing any flexibility.

If he is here to cooperate with the other editors, he is free to do so, by making his propositions and working from what the article was. On the other hand, if he wants to implement the wholesale change, which would be to ignore months of criticism levelled against it, then he is not here to cooperate. - Fedayee (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee:

Please note the following:

1) You are addressing Jehochman whose involvement in this article is regarding the preservation of the discussion environment. He is not (yet) engaged in content discussion as a mediator here. Therefore I will only very briefly comment on your arguments for the time-being.

2) This is the first time that you have actually raised some specific content issues related to the lead section. Note however that you have not raised any concerns relating to the factuality of the statements in the current version. You have only complained about missing statements that you think needs to be in the lead. Therefore I don’t see how your arguments above relate to wholesale reverting of the entire entry.

3) Your comments above show that you have not at all studied the development of the entry and the discussions. Strikingly you object to a sentence over which we had reached an agreement with Meowy, namely “Most sources agree that they were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church.”. On this point, our disagreement was limited to whether the Hemsinli can be considered as a distinct ethnic group on its own diff. In my entry dated 10 July (23.14) (diff) I have made a proposal for the lead and made the following comment on this issue: “I see we have an ongoing difference there.I have on my part no objection to delete my sentence at the end of the lead section related to “ethnicity” if that could help finding an agreement. With this assumption, I have deleted that sentence in the proposed version.”

4) I hope a discussion environment can be created and we will have a chance to discuss these issues in more detail with you.

5) I also see that you have made a comment saying that the evidences presented in my talk page do not prove anything. Well, if you read the diffs provided there, you will understand what is proven. Omer182 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaching consensus

Undid yet another WP:OWN revert by Omer182. The current version is how article was before Omer182 made the undiscussed changes. Again I am suggesting to start discussing changes one section at a time and stop the wholesale reverting. There are 5 sections, so we can start with Origins, and once we're done with that, we'll move on to the next one. Thanks for understanding and your cooperation. VartanM (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vartan,

I observe you have made another wholesale revert and have tried to designate this as a reversion of yet another wholesale revert. I am sure you are aware that this is not the case.

As you know (and as has been explained here a number of times) the changes I have inflicted have all been posted on this page prior to implementing, since the very beginning. Discussions have been initiated, objections have been raised and corresponding proposals/modifications have been done. These -several months long- efforts can not be considered/treated as if they never happened. Therefore I am undoing your wholesale revert.

Remember also that I have invited you (and others with similar attitude) for mediation in response to similar wholesale reverts taking the article back to an ancient version. That was a good opportunity for you to express your concerns, however you and others involved did not want to take part.

The correct thing for you to do at this point is not to wholesale revert but to clearly state what specifically you object in each and every (fully referenced ) section in the current version. I kindly request you follow this path.Omer182 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Omer, as evidenced by your lack of effort to reach consensus in the section below, your further wholesale reverts are going to be tagged as vandalism and reported to administrators. Talking with you is like talking with a wall, all I get is an echo of my own words. Many months of trying to work with you were just a waste of time, the WP:AGF cup is now full. VartanM (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

VartanM,

I am having difficulty why you persistantly make me repeat the facts that are well documented on this very page.

Please observe the following facts:

1- You have no input in content discussion

2- you keep wholesale reverting, taking out entire sections of fully referenced material

3- you have declined to go to mediation.

Consequently, please understand that you are the one who is not seeking consensus. I invite you to adhere to Wikipedia policies and state your specific reasons for each referenced sentence you remove from the text, before actually removing them.Omer182 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Their Own POV

I note that there is a discussion of a Turkish person of Hamshen origins about how at least some of the Hamshen see themselves. There is an urgent need for a section on Hamshen self-definitions of identity. From what I have read and seen -- the Hamshen appear to publicly define themselves to be Turks of partial Armenian origins, and it is their Turkish present that they are proud of and cling to, and not their Armenian roots. That having been said, it is also clear that there are some among them (Majority or Minority, significant or insignificant numbers, God only knows) who are both Crypto-Armenian and Crypto-Christian -- in other words, Armenian. The solution to this edit war is an ethnography of the Hamshen -- which would have to be carried out by anthropologists from a neutral country, followed by publications and also by self-defining political statements by elected and civil society elements of the Hamshen of Turkey. In the meantime, there needs to be a section that discusses how the Hamsehn define themselves.

There is a neutral multidisciplinary study on the Hemshin peoples. It is called The Hemshin and was published in 2006. JackalLantern (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Omer182 this is where you propose the additions or changes you want to implement. VartanM (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I have ceased reverting Cihsai's edits for the time being but would like to call attention to the editor's removal of any mention of the Hemshinli's Armenian origin in the introduction. Turkish nationalist propagandists who dispute/suppress the Armenian origins of the Hemshin can be mentioned in the body of the article but that does not mean that Wikipedia must adhere to their propaganda just because the Hemshin are located within Turkey. I think it might be time to call on an administrator to resolve this issue. Jackal 16:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I, too, will refrain from reverting Cihasi's latest edit, which is merely the latest revert in a long stream of reverts over thhe past few months. I think administrative action is imperative if Cihasi does not provide a clear explanation for the continued removal of well-sourced information.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

   :it seems the users determined to introduce a statement with regard to alleged "armenian origins" consider it their right to do so 
            WİTHOUT DİSCUSSİON. It is upto the user who wants to insert a change to propose it first in the talk page .
This is especially important if this change meets opposition. Moreover it is to be noticed that tis 

isuue was the subject of intense discusions previously between other users. By the way, this user refuses to be named a "propagandist" Cihsai (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New population data

Due to the article, In the 2002 Russian Federation census, 1,542 people identified themselves as Hamshenis, two-thirds of whom were living in Krasnodar Krai. Where 554,000 is taken from? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)