Talk:Defense of Van (1915)

started copy editing this article

I started copy editing this article. But then I realized the references are all screwed up, Also, the article is a stub, and I am not familiar with the history of this area so cannot easily expand upon it as it desired. Mattisse(talk)20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By H. K. Vartanian `The Western Armenian Liberation Struggle', 1967, Yerevan

Does this book exist? Those references are improperly written accorking to Wikipedia policy. See link below. I like this Armenian article and think it deserves to be done right.

• Wikipedia:Citing sources

Mattisse(talk) 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit tag removed

The article is much improved and currently does not need copy editing. Mattisse(talk) 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not correct to have commas in headings

See

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)

Mattisse(talk) 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about commas in headings

I'm checking with Wikipedia. So far they said that commas are O.K. in some cases, like in official battle honours, ie "Somme, 1916". So it is probably right in your case. Mattisse(talk) 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit tag placed on article

I tried to fix the intro to at least correct the punctuation and grammar. It is not good to use the passive voice, because the reader cannot tell who is doing what. I made guesses and my guesses may be wrong.

The rest of the article has degenerated in terms of correct use of the English language and so needs copy editing.

Please provide me with any information or feedback. I am very open to all suggestions. Mattisse(talk) 13:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried to fix the intro again as I can't figure out what movement you are refering to

I tried to figure out from the subsequent text what you meant, but I may have gotten it wrong. It's hard for me to understand what all the terms mean in trying to copy edit this article. Mattisse(talk) 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The complexity arises as different sources use different terminology to the same events. Depending on the event (time), you could do nothing but use the original terminology. Simple example: Ottoman based sources do not want to accept any terminology related with "provisional goverment", so they say "Lake Van". Obviously they are not talking about the aquatic life, they are talking about what Armenian sources might say "first republic of armenia", as a representation of their national goal. However, the same thing also named as "western administartaion of ...". If you look at the persons, they are talking about the same people, same armed force. There are couple of issues like that. Whole Russian army dissolves in couple of weeks. Why? Current studies open these issues, with adding new terminology to explain the problems in the previous assumptions, such as who was in real power. I'm sorry that this is the nature of this thing. --OttomanReference 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Things do not come-up by themselves, such as "ADR", or "western ..." administrations, there is an organizational source behind these activities. Armenian Revolution is a partial story of this region. There are couple different stories are going on at the same time. There is a military story under WWI, there is another story under ADR, and they all run in parallel, reader has to be clever to unite these stories. This period was named as the war that will end of all wars for no reason. --OttomanReference 14:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One another thing, Armenian Revolution is very interesting as these people fought against nearly every known force of its time to build a nation. To reach their goal they did everything; such that they have even sided with the enemy that really ended their dream. It is astonishing. --OttomanReference 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Various

1. I've tried to copy-edit this article into some semblance of order, but it really needs someone who knows the period.

2. Added and deleted "the" on numerous occasions.

3. Reduced the number of links.

4. Reduced the number of "Democratic Republic of Armenia"s - too cumbersome.

84.130.73.85 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolution?

Most of the information on this page is spurious. Nearly all German diplomats including Morgenthau himself, attested to the fact the revolution was intentionally provoked by Turkish authorties who attempted to convey it in an atmosphere as a revolution for a pretext for the Armenian Genocide. The title itself requires changing and itself has too many POV problems with not enough page citations and treats everything as certainty.--MarshallBagramyan 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed this article the Van Resistance as it more accurately describes what the conflict really was. -- Clevelander 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The background of the events

First footnote, refers to the roots of the revolutionary parties. It cited the sentence: The Armenakans, Hnchakians, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation members already had extensive organizations in the Lake Van area, and two other empires in the region [1]. Thanks for reading.--OttomanReference 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the footnote was referring to the 1890s and not 1909, you can not use a reference of the 1890s, when the revolutionaries were effectivally removed by the Hamidian regime, only under the Young-Turk regime, were they partially reborn, and it was the Young-Turks who were responsable of that, since those same 'revolutionaries' were used to help reverse the Hamidian regime. You can not just dump footnotes, without taking in account of what those footnotes really refers too. Fad (ix) 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"and in small towns began a local uprising with pitchforks, wrenches, pipes, and other makeshift weapons". that is so funny...neurobio 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Revolution" should be deleted.

I was redirected here from the Deletion REquest page on this article. I am not sure it should be deleted, but the title "Armenian Revolution" should definitely be. There should not be any such title even redirecting to this article. The term used by contemporary German officers, as well as scholars, is "Van uprising," or "Van defense." "Armenian revolution" is a Turkish POV, and a very small minority at that--it should not be taken as a fact and title. Doesn't matter if some of the local leaders had been revolutionaries before--it was a desparate act of self-defense against Ottomans.--TigranTheGreat 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ultimately unsuccessful"

This phrase is Turkish POV. Armenians consider it very much of a success--they resisted, and survived, unlike the rest of Armenians in Turkey. I am not saying we should put "successful" instead in the intro--we just can't take the Turkish POV as fact. Even contemporary Austrian officers observed that the uprising's goal was survival:

The Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I, in his memoirs, characterized the Van uprising as “…an act of desperation” by Armenians who “…recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]”. http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4436--TigranTheGreat 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this article serious???

The background part says:

Before 1915 many Armenians lived in Western Armenia. The Ottoman Empire had tyrannized the Armenians since the 17th century. In the late Ottoman period Van was famous for its Armenian silversmiths.

How many? What is Western Armenia, is it a dream or reality? What are the tryannizing acts since 17th century? Who says Van was famous with those?

Come on, is this part a farce, propaganda or actually an encyclopedia article? Where are the sources, numbers, references? Please at least correct - if you still want to keep it. --Gokhan 08:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gokhan, would it please you if there is a link to History of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, this way if there is a misunderstanding it can be refered to its main article. --OttomanReference 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's better off course. Still the wording seems POV and childish to me. When is this "late Ottoman period"? 1910? 1890? 1922? How "many" or what percentage of Armenians lived in this "Western Armenia"? This morning I had to correct one article stating Şampiyon was famous, because some guy put a deletion tag and wrote "famous for who?"... Anyway. --Gokhan 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Ottoman period is obviously 2nd half of 19th c-1918. 2 million Armenians lived in Ottoman Empire before 1915. I say that's "many." The area was always called "Armenia" before 1923. Even now, World Book Encyclopedia and Atlas have "Armenia" over eastern Turkey.--TigranTheGreat 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK it's good to see that the related part of the article is now corrected to contain some facts. --Gokhan 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Waav, this article looks like a real joke. It makes no mention to the asassination of Mayor of VanBedros Kapamaciyan? He was a moderate Armenian loyal to the Ottoman Empire. He served for peace between Armenians and local Muslim population and was assassinated by Dashnak militias. Before the Armenian Revolt, Van has a population of 500.000 most of whom were muslims. In fact the Armenian population was 131.000 (McCarthy, et al 2006)In 1914 there were 1672 villages within the province 112 - Armenian, 187 - Mixed, 1373 Muslim, in 1919 there were only 350 Muslim villages left unburned. (McCarthy, et al 2006)This article needs to be updated with the new info from The Armenian Rebellion at Van by Justin McCarthy et al, 2006 --ogulsev 4:52, 15 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Call for voting (totallydisputed tag)

After numerous edits by our Armenian friends, I would like to ask for the removal of totallydisputed tag.

1. Accept --OttomanReference 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose -- oh, it still has alot of work to do. Virtually every single paragraph. --TigranTheGreat 08:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Fad (ix) 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Needs more work. -- Clevelander 22:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Accept neurobio 17:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Who cares? This is just a propaganda article anyway. --Gokhan 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pic

Ottoman, why was the picture removed? It is found in the archives.--TigranTheGreat 08:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not blame me! :-) I could not figure that out (why someone do not like the wording "local defense line" especially most of them in daily cloths) plus the logic of other things (considerations other than the history, I guess) that is happening on this page. If this would be my history, I would not be reckless on my heroes. Whaetever. --OttomanReference 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because I thought that it came from the Battle of Van and not the Van Resistance. -- Clevelander 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman, could you please type the entire passage from Robert-Jan Dwork Holocaust: A History by Deborah and van Pelt, p. 38, that talks about the 1st Armenian Republic? This doesn't sound right, but I want to see where it's coming from.--TigranTheGreat 20:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page it talks about the first Armenian republic. It does indeed talk about the Armenians. It first talk about Max Scheubner, it also quote from him. Then talk about the ten commandments of the Ittihadists and the Turkish government plan of destruction of the entire Armenian community. Then, the only thing which is the closest to what Ottomanreference attribute to that page is this following passage: Through the use of centralized planning and modern communication systems, all Armenians were to be assaulted. For the Turks, the sole question was: When? They did not have long to wait. In spring of 1915, Russian troops invaded Turkish territory following a failed Turkish offensive in the Caucasus. Sensing the opportunity, nationalist Armenians established a provisional government in the Russian-occupied era. Here was the proof of the "internal enemy" the Turks had long claimed them to be, and Enver Pasha, the Turkish minister of war, did not hesitate to... Then the rest of the page relate to the destruction of the Armenians. This is also another example of a footnote not supporting the text it is supposed to source. Fad (ix) 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The book is at the state library; I have a very short note. It says; "page 38, the setting of the provisional government". It was in the introduction section of the book about Holocaust (Jews) and talking about WWI in general. Next time; when I am at library, I will get the text. But if there was more than this, I would have it in my notes. --OttomanReference 21:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Turks taking Van

OR, can you tell me where you got this info?

The Ottoman army arrived outside the city on the 15th of August. On the 16th, it began a bombardment. On the 19th of August, the Turks entered the city and, after a two-hour fight, decisively defeated the local units and destroyed the garrison.

From what I know, Russians retreated with Armenians on July 2, then came back a few days later and stayed. Turks entered the deserted city without firing a shot. Where is this Turkish victory of August 19 coming from?--TigranTheGreat 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When I found the document, that sentence was there. So, I do not know where it came from. Also check the battle of Van the argument seems to be repeated there, which has a reference at the end. I believe your version is more close to be correct. I have a source that claims most of the fighting force was on the mountains. However, you have removed the Turkish sources, would you believe if I gave you one? Let’s look at the sentence. The so claimed "Two hour fight" in the context of 1915 could be easily mean that "without firing a shot" for Russians. You know it is not only Ottomans who were biased. :-)--OttomanReference 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Turkish reference since it was wildly different from two non-Turkish, non-Armenian figures--C. Walker, a British historian, says 1,300 (relying on American Usher), Morgenthau says 1,500. Turkish source presumably says 30,000 (and considering that some sources have been distorted on this article, I don't know if the Turkish source says that). The article made it sound like the Turkish estimate was the correct one, which obviously was non-neutral.

But, if you have a Turkish book that says when they entered, and whether there was a battle when they entered, that's a start. If we find a neutral source, we will use the neutral numbers.

By the way, for Jevdet Bey, here is the reference: Christopher J. Walker, Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" p. 205-211 (he also mentions Armenak Yerkaryan as the leader of the defenders). You can put it either in the paragraph, or in a footnote--your choice.--TigranTheGreat 09:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OR, I checked Battle of Van, there is not a single reference there. --TigranTheGreat 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which sources are distorted on this article? deniz 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started working on the article

Will be reviewing all the footnotes etc., also I will be loading in a subpages the three relevant chapters of Ussher work. Davison should also be added. Probably the article will be nearly all rewritten. Fad (ix) 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the three relevant chapters are here. [1] Ussher was there in Van at the center of the siege and had various discussions with its governor. Thosefor hw was a primary source. Fad (ix) 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Society of Free Armenia

Does anyone know where the info about this organization is taken from? Sounds dubious.--TigranTheGreat 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigran, Armenians were not the majority of the population in Eastern Anatolia, they were prior 1829, but from then to 1896... the Armenian population ended up to be a minority. Fad (ix) 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I never added any data about the population. By the way, they were a relative majority--more than any particular ethnic group (though less than 50%). In the Van province, they were actually a majority.--TigranTheGreat 08:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should not mix Van central city and the rest of Van. Lets just say that Armenians along with the Kurds were more numerous than Turks in Eastern Anatolia. Fad (ix) 12:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my edit does say kinda the same about Eastern Anatolia--that Armenians were a relative majority.

CJ Walker says in the Van province Armenians were absolute majority--since the events included the entire province, why not state that?--TigranTheGreat 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, mainly because Walker is wrong. :) There is no way of getting a reliable statistic for the province of Van, what is certain is that compared to Armenians and Kurds, Turks were a minority in Van. Fad (ix) 20:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Armenians were a majority on the central city, the Heartland of Van, there are plenty of records to support that. Fad (ix) 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What did the governor, Jevdet Bey, do that was so upsetting?

As a new person, I am trying to understand this article. The initial paragraph should state clearly what is going on. But I can't tell. I know everything in this article is controversial because there are two sides to the story. But still clarity, not vagueness, is the way to go in my opinion. Surely there are some facts that can be agreed upon. Mattisse(talk) 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Hope I am not stepping into a minefield. Mattisse(talk) 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The total killed up to the relief by the Russians is generally believed to be 55,000. Do not change. Also, we know why the rose up - to protect themselves against massacres and deportations. Ottoman reference is POVing this article.

You can read this analysis [[2]] made in 1915 in a US newspaper if it helps. --Oguz1 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User user:Hetoum and its It is suspected a sock puppets or impersonator

The article has been under the attack of this user and deleted many sections of the document.--OttomanReference 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

user:Hetoum recent edit to Van Resistance (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

user:Hetoum's edits to Van Resistance is deleting the content that is worked hard on by both sides of the issue. Your understanding of the concept is limited. The article is intended to explain from the begining to the end of the movement 1915-1918 in this region. Please stop this activity. If you want to add information that we can verify you are welcome. --OttomanReference 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My Reversion on the van article Hello. The reason why I deleted more than half of the content of the Van Resistance article is because it was off topic. The Van Resistance should deal with the start of hostilities from the start of massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to relief by Russian Armies. If you want to push it, the retaking of Van by Ottoman Troops and the second capture by Russian troops can be included. The rest is pretty much off topic and needs to be incorporated into a different article. You can ahve a background summary leading to a main article, and summary conclusion. Also, try to use correct grammar when writing articles, and use proper English pronounciation of Armenian names instead of the Turkish ones, as you did on Armen Garo's page. : ) Cheers, (Hetoum 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OttomanReference"

:user:Hetoum's editions deletes the information regarding:

• WHO ARE THESE HEROS (Fedayee)THAT SAVED THE PEOPLE?
• WHO IS ARAM OF VAN, why is he a hero?
• WHAT HAPPANED TO Fedayee? (Did resistance become part of a bigger goal (DRA)?, Did they quit being a freedom fighter and wanted to be part of Ottoman Empire?
• Why are we finding the names of these Fedayee in the documents of Treaty of Serves, why Wilsonian Armenia and these names are being linked?
• Did Fedayee save any Armenians when the Ottoman came back in 1918?
• Did they all die? If they died how did they died?
• Did Armenian HISTORY IN THIS PERIOD HAVE ANY ACHIEVEMENTS?

:user:Hetoum claims he is an Armenian. IF so, he does NO respect to the ARMENIAN RESISTANCE (Aram Manougian, Andranik Toros Ozanian, Drastamat Kanayan, Garegin Njdeh, Hakob Zavriev and Simon Vratsian). He acts like HE HATES ANY ARMENIAN ACHIEVEMENT, and want to wipe out them from the history. If it is o.k. with other Armenians, Ottomans REALLY DO NOT CARE.

Can someone tell me how 55.000 people were killed in one day? (a-bomb killed 70.000 in Nagasaki)especially while the whole population was less than 200.000? and why Cevded decided to exterminate armenians while a Huge Russian Army was on its way to attack the region? How did armenians after loosing 55.000 people fought of the organised army (capable of killing thousands) with pitch forks (if there were any army). Where did these massive Turkis army came since the eastern army was destroyed in sarikamis? why do Otoman documents are full of Cevdets call for help and warnings of an Armenian out break? Why people are still using Morgenthau as a source in these issues when it is known that he has never been in the area, his personal diary clearly contradicts with his book and as he said his book was written by his armenian helpers and then edited extensively by the propaganda bureu members? Why do armenian testimonies cleary describe weapon amasment and preperations in Van if it was a self defence? Why do all unsourced "it is said that he said that" type quotes always talk about extermination? neurobio 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. At least 55000 Turks attacked helpless Armenians, each killing at least 1 (on average). 2. Jevdet hated Armenians, just as any perpetrator of a genocide would, 3. Armenians are brave--they can fight and win even after losses (as splendidly demonstrated in 1990's), 4. Jevdet's army was separate from that of Enver, which was destroyed in Sarikamish. Fortunately, Armenians destroyed Jevdet's army too, 5. Jevdet was lying, just as any criminal would, 6. Morgenthau is reputable source, the attacks against him are nothing but denialist propaganda, 7. Armenians made their own weapons in Van. They even made a canon. 8. All prior points, as well as the extermination, are fully sourced and supported by overwhelming evidence kept in archives worldwide. --TigranTheGreat 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Just look at the differences in his diary and his book. Also look at the fact that he in fact enjoyed Enver's and Talat's companion and they regularly went on horse riding together. And also look at this: "In a letter to President Wilson, written on November 26, 1917, Morgenthau had expressed his discouragement at the amount of opposition and indifference to the war and proposed authoring a book that would help bring about a change in this situation (Guenter Lewy, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, pp . 140). This is why his book was different from his diaries and this is why his book can not be considered a reliable source. 7. Good for Armenians. They can make canons out of sand, planes out of forks, and a genocide story out of a civil war. It reminds me of McGayverian ;) 8. There is no proof that any high level Turkish official actually ordered extermination of Armenians. If there is, show us? "he said that she said he heard this" is not a proof. I definetely think that Armenians suffered a lot and Ottoman government did not do what it should have in order to protect Armenians. It is a shame how local population and officials behaved in many instances. But there were provinces with good valis (governors) in which Armenians did not suffer that much. Like the province of Damascus. Thanks to Djemal Pasha's interventions, many of the deportees lived through the hard times. And yet many Armanians call him a killer even though the Armenians of that time called him "Pasha of Armenia." (Yair Auron, "Banality of Indifferene: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide," p. 377. sh.t, I had to write genocide). I think there is wrong-doing towards Armenians but it was not genocide. If you drop this insistance on the word genocide, I can see Turks showing you the compassion that is due for the sufferings of your ancestors. Soli1978 07:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite

This article is a complete mess from top to bottom. I have tried to fix certain things such as images, the atrocious grammar, and above all, the disorganized content, but there is no simple remedy asides from near-blanking this article and working from scratch. The article is called the Van Resistance, the actual defense of the city in the spring of 1915 yet we are for some reason talking about some little-known provisional government that most mainstream authors on the Genocide do not mention and then we go ahead discussing Enver's campaigns in the region of Van in 1918? The year is 1915, not, 1916, 1917, or 1918 where even the occurrences mentioned in the article are mere sentences. I don't know how anyone can read this article without having a major headache due to its disheveled state.

Some of the citations are near impossible to verify and otherwise vague and ambiguous, lacking elementary details such as publication information and authors. I am not choosing to do this not entirely because of the content of the article so certain things can remain in them regardless but this deserves a complete rewriting. I'm willing to take some time in doing so but this is not an article on the history of the region of the Van vilayet during World War I but the defense act of Armenians in 1915.

If there is any opposition to this move, I'd like to hear so but I doubt we will be able to rectify this mess by simply trimming a section or two or simply fixing grammar.--MarshallBagramyan 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

copyedit tag

I think we should remove copyedit tag for now, the article is far from being finished. People are coming to to fix the grammar etc, but their work may be deleted soon after that, and be wasted. What do you think? deniz 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Battle of Van?

What is the logic in behind this proposal. All the historical content covers the Van resistance (even USA ambassador's book) as a separate entity. Can anyone give us a credible source about this proposal? Given the historical facts, it is hard to take this as a "serious" proposal. Thaks? --OttomanReference 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposition of deletion of content.

The Van resistance is important as 1) They Armenian national liberation movement effectively resisted the Ottoman Empire. Why it is effective? They did not die, they did not surrender during the April Uprising. They did resist a new attack during the summer. With the help of Andranik Toros Ozanian they achieved to protect this land During the Battle of Van until April 1918 when the Ottoman Army recaptured this area. The resistance from 1915-to-1918 was controlled this land (I challange the proposal that UFO's had something to do with the control of this region). Because of this simple reason this article tries to tell the period 1915-1918. 2) What is the biggest achievement of this people? What made them different than other resistance? The biggest acivement is not resistance to Ottoman Army but establishment of a governing structure. That was the most important achievement of these people. 3) If they did not die until 1918, what happened to these man? Did they retreat. They retreat from what? Which army was here? What was the name of this army? Did they show resistance while retreating? Where did they end up? Did they retreat to Yerevan? USER:MarshallBagramyan Do you have any answer these questions? I believe you know the answers and that is the basic reason why you want to get rid of the article. If not by deletion, by renaming or removing the content. If these questions are not answered in this article what is the significance of this resistance? THANKS..--OttomanReference 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on here OR, first of all, I'm not the one who is on an article creating binge here from everything to Armenian volunteer battalions to imaginary revolutions inside Turkey in the 19th century and hence cannot keep track of every single edit. Second of all, this article's name is unencyclopedic, information is unhelpful and obscure and its title would lead most people to think that it is about the actual battle of Van in May 1915. Third, the grammar is atrocious, if I commit myself to bettering this article, it has to be from scratch. Did you even bother reading the above message?

The name can be changed to Armenian Administration of Van but even the information of this article is lacking, two sentences do not warrant an entire section devoted to it and most sources have to be clarified (I doubt many of us would know what [Sv. 2000: T. 30, pp. 101-102 means). --MarshallBagramyan 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan says: article's name is unencyclopedic, The history of the Article is under your fingers (or mouse) to check how many times it was renamed and by who to figure out that answer. The Armenian genocide "defenders" who waged a war to change the name so that it will fit into Armenian Genocide ideology. Does it reflect the historical realities, it does not. Why it does not? Because if you name it as it was used (Armenian Revolt or Armenian Revolution) in 1915 (even by USA documents) than it brings issues to Armenian Genocide. The "defenders" wanted to get rid of and achieved it. It was a war, which some of these defenders see themselves as soldiers and even choose military nicknames. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan says: Third, the grammar is atrocious. When history is written by Armenians with Armenian lexicography it is nice, but rest is bad and ugly. Truth has no value in these arguments. Truth can be denied if the taste of language does not fit to your pleasure. Instead of concentrating on the truth it is easy to concentrate on speech characteristics and disregard the factual information. Instead of building responses to basic questions; such as Who Where Why and What fallowed? What were the parts, where did they acquire the resources? Yo do not bother either to ask or disregard the people who asks these questions. It is so dogmatic that the people like MarshallBagramyan 's view of history; if the answers of these questions are not in his/her history book (lets say the bible of the truth) the questions are not (or should not be) valuable questions.

MarshallBagramyan says: section devoted to it and most sources have to be clarified Instead of searching for what happened (truthfully) with this administration, which even in 1917 (three years after establishment) Armenian diaspora in Europe try to coordinate its activities so that this new establishment have a better chance to survive becomes an unsignificant thing as MarshallBagramyan puts it "two sentences do not warrant an entire section" Who is responsible from establishing the significance of a person who was named as "ARAM OF VAN." Otomans or the Armenians? Why the nickname was Van? Why we face with "FREE VASPURKAN" as the identity associated to his name? When Ottomans try to explain using the intelligence of the period Armenian Genocide defenders claim, "it is insignificant". What did Aram of Van do during these three years. MarshallBagramyan implies that he did nothing, it was insignificant and we need to get rid of these articles. It is hard to believe that these people did nothing and sleep in their bed while the world around them was in a big mess.

MarshallBagramyan says: ""LETS get rid of it" Of course. There is a group of Armenian soldiers which votes to get rid of even the name of these activities. MarshallBagramyan did it before with the April 24 and they can do it again. It is very sad that I can not do anything. These removal instead of advancing the information can only be perceived as a joke. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Marshall

Marshall is clearly following wikipedia guidelines. OttomanRef - this is not a blog, and do not attempt to make wikipedia one. This article should deal in detail only about the initial self defense. The rest of the events of 1915 and eventual evacuation of Van in 1918 can be summarized in the end. Furthermore McCarthy is not a reliable source. (Hetoum 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Dear Hetoum if McCarthy is not a reliable source, than Genocide deniers have to bring the proof that his claims are wrong. You can claim he is biased and says things that you do not want to hear (remember the law that prohibits discussion of the events), but you can not ignore the factual arguments he brought forward. If his interpretation of the period is wrong, you have the responsibility to break it down and prove why he is wrong. Anything else is the worst thing can be done for the people who died during this time, be it may a genocide or a civil war. Also, he is more reliable than "Burning Tigris" (even its rhetoric is biased and brings nothing new to event history). This article is about a military resistance and people of this resistance. They did not die in may 1915. The resistance lasted until April 1918 in this region. The Ottoman Empire COULD not reoccupy the region April of 1918, which takes the events (forming a military from militia, retreating to face the enemy one more time, etc) from 1915 to 1918. Article is about what did these people do during this time (15-18 and maybe until they die..). Were they savage people with guns that killed Kurds or anyone who was not Christian?. Or did they BUILD A GOVERNING structure and tried to establish something decent? If the article is not about the fate of these militias then what is the meaning of cutting the history short (or this article)? Why do you propose to cut it short??? It is your responsibility to tell that some died between 1918-1920 trying to establish the ADR. Some lived and formed the Armenian Diaspora. Why are you not telling the story of these Fadayee and attacking what is very short analysis of the history? THANKS. --OttomanReference 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I speak of the quality of his work, not his arguments. His book on Van misspells the word Bitlis as Sitlis on the second page, and his other works similarly misspell place-names, as well as provide incorrect dates. Similarly, if you open his book on the history of the Ottoman empire, it is clear that he lacks knowledge on Ottoman history. He seems to have no understandings of concepts as the devshirme and sipahis to name a few. One whose haphazardly works are full of errors and clearly rushed to be published cannot be considered a reliable or even competent source.

The reason this article should be cut down is because this incident deals specifically with the self defense of the Armenian population in 1915. In 1916 or 17 there was no resistance, just some survivors of Armenian populace of Van lucky enough to survive Ottoman troops in 1915, who were rebuilding their lives. There was no "resistance" in 1918 either. Armenians evacuated the city. The rest of the content can be discussed elsewhere.

(Hetoum 06:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Hetoum says "self defense of the Armenian population" The military activities in the region did not end in 1915. The correct word was "BACK-AND-FORTH", which you can see the same concept in many different sources, which improves the validity of the definition. It reflects a correct (they say "literal") and realistic definition of the period AND the activities of the resistance. Besides it is not correct to minimize the history on "military terms". The activities of these people continued in many directions, not just armed. Their activities were not as simplistic, so degrading it to simple terms ("resisted for a month and disappeared from the historical perspective") is unjust to these people. I object this perception of yours which degrades these people. They formed a governing structure, which in some call it the first independent Armenian governing structure (before the DRA). If you look at the people involved in this organization it is "WHO is WHO" of Armenian resistance that build DRA in 1918. Summary; this was not simple "I got my farming equipment and resisted the mighty ottoman army for a month" story. THANKS.--OttomanReference 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

look man, its simple, this article violates basic rules of wiki. What you are trying to cover is the history of the region of the Van vilayet during World War I but the defense act of Armenians in 1915. The rest can be in a different article, possibly put under the Administration article. BTW, please do not vandalize my comments under the talk page. (Hetoum 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Hetoum says "look man, its simple, .... history of the region.." 1) if it was history of the region, I know couple guys who will pleasantly put the pictures of the Kurds who were salutered by the Armenian militia. Also the pictures of the Muslim villages that were destroyed after three years of Armenian occupation. These are not explained in this article so, IT IS NOT the history of the region. 2) "Administration article" is open for you to fill the gaps. 3) All the resistances (or Uprising, or Revolt, what you like it to be named) articles clearly explains what happened at the end. This resistance did not end with the 1915 or 1916 or 1917 or 1918, but it ends with these people joining to a global Armenian national goal and enforcing the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Armenia. Except irrelevant emotional responses you have not given any prof why this resistance should end with 1915, even though its members did not die in 1915 or lost their ground in 1915. It is also common that there is nothing added by you to this article , which brings the question: "DO you really know what happened during this time period". My vote is that you are acting on Armenian genocide dogma, and not seeking the truth. ThanksOttomanReference 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum says "look man, its simple, .... history of the region.." 1) if it was history of the region, I know couple guys who will pleasantly put the pictures of the Kurds who were salutered by the Armenian militia. Also the pictures of the Muslim villages that were destroyed after three years of Armenian occupation. These are not explained in this article so, IT IS NOT the history of the region. 2) "Administration article" is open for you to fill the gaps. 3) All the resistances (or Uprising, or Revolt, what you like it to be named) articles clearly explains what happened at the end. This resistance did not end with the 1915 or 1916 or 1917 or 1918, but it ends with these people joining to a global Armenian national goal and enforcing the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Armenia. Except irrelevant emotional responses you have not given any prof why this resistance should end with 1915, even though its members did not die in 1915 or lost their ground in 1915. It is also common that there is nothing added by you to this article , which brings the question: "DO you really know what happened during this time period". My vote is that you are acting on Armenian genocide dogma, and not seeking the truth. ThanksOttomanReference 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I ask you to remain civil.

As I said, this article deviates from the main point of the article. I dont know where you are going jumping to Kurds being slaughtered or whatever. Stay on point. You are discussing a political entity and history of the region or vilayet in Armenian controlled period, it should go under the administration article. Read the basic wikipedia guidelines - this violates it, stay on point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_guidelines

I agree we should provide conclusion for defense, that is: The defense was successfully concluded in 1915 with Russian relief. Later on Russians evacuated, followed by Armenians, then came back again to start rebuilding lives. They remained there till Enver's campaigns of 1918, when they evacuated. Look, you keep going in circles, and violate basic wiki guidelines, if you want we can as some other admin as Khoikoi for input on wiki protocol. (Hetoum 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Here's one analysis and 2 original sources, from UK and US in 1915, that shed more light on the situation. [3] , [4], [5]. It looks like the whole thing started because of fighting between the Armenians and Kurds and was exasperated by Cevdet Bey when he asked for Armenian recruits for the Russian front, that were promised by the Armenian leaders, but never materialized. These sources should be included in this article. Please read them. --Oguz1 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing useful in the newspaper articles except the first one which goes with view of Armenian Self-Defense from what I could read from the poor scan. Second source, I do not know what it has to do with this, and third is a poorly written article from an unknown newspaper based on hearsay (which it admits.)First one is a somewhat usefull addition and will not be ignored by me in rewriting. Hetoum 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing about this saying of fighting between kurds and Armenians, and the reasons the community did not give the 4000 recruits because they would be surely killed as in Labor Battalions, etc ... Hetoum 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Resistance-ary Federation

I think that should be their name now. deniz^T_C 05:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hello.

I researched the topic and rewrote the article. I copy-edited it. Grammar and language should be fine now.

Also, I reviewed a lot of the stuff previously in the article. Quite frankly, a lot of it was factually inaccurate and pulled out of the air. I removed those, and cited from verifiable sources.

Further, a lot of the stuff was irrelevant to the Van resistance. Some of it belonged, and was repeated from articles including vilayet of Van, City of Van, Wilsonian Armenia and Armenian provisional government to name a few. They deviated from the article. In other places it appeared like someones research paper rather than an encyclopedic article.

Finally, I looked up this so-called battle of Van article and could not find any sources for it. Any reference to the battle of Van refers to the Armenian resistance or self-defense battle. There was not a battle of Van, rather Ottomans evacuated for a second time.

This is pretty thorough, but I suggest to anyone before adding on to cite sources and use correct grammar. The previous version was a disaster and none of the contributors made a wholehearted attempt for accuracy or to cite their sources.

Also, I did not footnote every single little source, as I looked up the Battle of the Bulge article, which did it similarly. If you see the online references, you will find most of the stuff from there.

Before anyone tags this POV or anything look at the source, in particular more than half are available online. More than half are from non-Armenian authors. Seems reasonable. Cheers Hetoum I 04:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This version is like an Armenian Revolutionary Federation propaganda brochure. The language is not encyclopedic. It is not neutral. --OttomanReference 05:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting how this user just reverts back to his poor grammar version with POV and factual innacuracy where the article contradicts himself. I did my homework. You need to discuss your changes and cite sources item by item.I see none of this here. All I see is being accused of being a Dashnak. Please no accusations here.Hetoum I 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your version is baised, in an armed conflict betwen two groups, you deleted all the references explanation belong to the other side. Please show me a single sentence in your version that is from Ottoman point of view? OttomanReference 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more, revert without talking.

This user reverted once more without talking. Im going to sleep tonight, we will pick this up tommorow. Cheers Hetoum I 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I had taken a look earlier, Hetoum asked me to take a look now. The differences between this and the prev. version seem to be the 2 sections: Armenian pop. of Van & Revolt in Van. The first seems straightforward background & I see no reason why it should not be there (though of course I might be missing something). The 2nd is probably the difficult one, for it raises the possibility that the Armenians may in fact have cooperated with the Russians. The section seems OK in principle--it is after all an obvious question--but the wording is not careful & the possible views should be sourced to secondary sources that said them, not worded as if it were our own conclusion. Before I give a try at rewriting it, have I gotten the problem figured our right? Or are there some specific details in dispute? or some specific refs? If you could answer here before changing things, it might help. Let's try to isolate the actual problem areas. We are obviously not going to settle the basic political issues, but we're not supposed to, just to present the different viewpoints. DGG 06:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem has many sides. This article is about a resistance, developed in a specific region, however the author brought events even does not belong to the region. The main conflict in this event was mainly originates from the
(a) time line of the events. The previous article made specific separation of the events based on dates. This new edit removes that order. This is a common trend which generally ends with representing the Ottoman Reactions were presented as being the cause of the events. It is like claiming September 11 was happened because of the Occupation of Iraq.
(b) Article presents a group of Armenian revolutionary activities (their story was represented as the story of the indigenous people of the region) organized by Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ((ottomans perceive them as insurgency)) in the city as the main story line. What happaned to Kurds and Turks living in the city?
(c) what was background to the Van Resistance what is the armed conflict (the event) is not clear. The same rhetoric is found in propaganda materials.
(d) the Muslim governor is presented as a crazy man who wanted to kill a city of the armed Christian Armenians (30,000) with his 5,000 soldiers. These are the the historical perception of one side. Ottoman see 30,00 well armed militia facing them, which they were well armed and trained militarily to know where to dig the trenches and build a defense line. These tactics are not used by common farmers.
(e) The author specificity eliminates a section (a section buried deep into a paragraph) that tells the formation of the provisional government, which was within the first week of the resistance. Ottomans say, the resistance was developed for establishing the Armenian state, step by step. The very early establishment of this is the clue for this aim.
(f) If this article does not make the most important event of this resistance what is the meaning of this article? Author also removed the reference of deportation of Armenians from the region. (g) Article claims that governor wanted to ask Armenians to be in his army? Even if there was such as request, this was not for the Armenians, which even the armenian sources claim that in January of the same year Enver ordered the Armenians as untrustworthy to be depended as a military force against Armenian volunteer units of the Russian Army. Something that has a reference does not mean that it is the truth.
(g) The facts and interpretations are mixed in the article. Author claims: "Jevdet had allowed refugees to enter the city as part of his strategy to subdue the defenders." It is true that region was a war zone between two armies Russian and Ottoman. It is true that there was a flow of "refugees." It is true that jevdet wanted them to find a safe haven in the city by "letting them enter the city". It is controversial to claim he wanted to "subdue the defenders." That is a POV statement. What is real is that his fight was against Armenian militia and he wanted the best conditions available to conman Armenians (farmers). Ottoman sources claim that he was worried about non-Armenians and he spend his time to arrange best conditions for them. Just couple paragraph above the article claims he wanted to massacre the Armenians but he did not do it (with the refugees) when he had a chance. (h) section titles are not NPOV. This article needs section titles which are neutral. Thanks. --OttomanReference 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, a lot of what was in the article was factually inaccurate, some didn't even belong in the article, and some things are just pulled from the air. The part about revolt was thrown out by other editors 3 months ago, so I do not know why this user is trying to bring it back once the article is rewritten. The general scholarly consensus clearly states there was no revolt. I do not know why we are bringing revisionism here. The part on population I already briefly summarized, and this user insists on saying it twice as well as adding unsourced and contradictory numbers. So first, before I bring any of my points, I will answer this users.

(a) time line of the events. The previous article made specific separation of the events based on dates. This new edit removes that order. This is a common trend which generally ends with representing the Ottoman Reactions were presented as being the cause of the events. It is like claiming September 11 was happened because of the Occupation of Iraq.

The old article was a mess, and half of it didnt talk about the battle, the other half was pulled from the air. We dont need to do everything day by day, and it looked clumsy. See other battle articles.

(b) Article presents a group of Armenian revolutionary activities (their story was represented as the story of the indigenous people of the region) organized by Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ((ottomans perceive them as insurgency)) in the city as the main story line. What happaned to Kurds and Turks living in the city?

This article doesn't present revolutionary activities, going back to its not a rebellion, but a self defense, like Warsaw Ghetto in WWII. You keep bringing up that this was some Armenian Revolutionary Federation scheme, yet it is clear it was a civilian organized self defense. The part about the Moslem population of the city was answered in my version. Turks boarded boats. It is cited as well.

(c) what was background to the Van Resistance what is the armed conflict (the event) is not clear. The same rhetoric is found in propaganda materials.

You have to be more specific than to repetitiously say "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" and "=propaganda." The background and 1896 defense is dealt with appropriately, as well as massacres in Urmia in Persia, which you conveniently failed to include.

(d) the Muslim governor is presented as a crazy man who wanted to kill a city of the armed Christian Armenians (30,000) with his 5,000 soldiers. These are the the historical perception of one side. Ottoman see 30,00 well armed militia facing them, which they were well armed and trained militarily to know where to dig the trenches and build a defense line. These tactics are not used by common farmers.

The Turkish governor, relative to Enver, and clearly an anti-Armenian and murderous individual is appropriately dealt with. His violent stance on the Armenian population is thoroughly discussed and cited. If you can fined reliable sources showing him to be a nice man who hands out candy to Armenians feel free. As for 30,000 you again keep forgetting there were only 300 rifles and 1,000 secondary antique weapons as I searched and cited. It doesn't take a lot of discipline to set up trenches and barricades, it is actually a tradition for the French to do this. I do not know where you are going with this, basically you are saying farmers cannot dig holes. Much ado about nothing.

(e) The author specificity eliminates a section (a section buried deep into a paragraph) that tells the formation of the provisional government, which was within the first week of the resistance. Ottomans say, the resistance was developed for establishing the Armenian state, step by step. The very early establishment of this is the clue for this aim.

I do not know what your are talking about. You copy-pasted more than half the article dealing with this so-called imaginary provisional government into the battle article. This violates wiki rules. Further, general scholarly consensus is that this was the self defense of the Armenian population not a revolution, so we dont need to keep going back on the rebellion. I briefly talked about the provisional government, and it is linked to the main article, as this is the battle article not the government article - anyhow more than half of the stuff was pasted from government article - wiki violation.

(f) If this article does not make the most important event of this resistance what is the meaning of this article? Author also removed the reference of deportation of Armenians from the region.

You are making much ado about nothing, article deals with the resistance and stays on point. What reference do deportation? Armenians were massacred in this province, there were no deportations.

(g) Article claims that governor wanted to ask Armenians to be in his army? Even if there was such as request, this was not for the Armenians, which even the armenian sources claim that in January of the same year Enver ordered the Armenians as untrustworthy to be depended as a military force against Armenian volunteer units of the Russian Army. Something that has a reference does not mean that it is the truth.

Its interesting how you pull out one random sentence but forget to add on the other 3 next to it. It is cited Jevdet wanted the able bodied men under pretexts of conscription, but the motive was to massacre able bodied men so no one could defend the Armenian population of the city.

(g) The facts and interpretations are mixed in the article. Author claims: "Jevdet had allowed refugees to enter the city as part of his strategy to subdue the defenders." It is true that region was a war zone between two armies Russian and Ottoman. It is true that there was a flow of "refugees." It is true that jevdet wanted them to find a safe haven in the city by "letting them enter the city". It is controversial to claim he wanted to "subdue the defenders." That is a POV statement. What is real is that his fight was against Armenian militia and he wanted the best conditions available to conman Armenians (farmers). Ottoman sources claim that he was worried about non-Armenians and he spend his time to arrange best conditions for them. Just couple paragraph above the article claims he wanted to massacre the Armenians but he did not do it (with the refugees) when he had a chance.

Again, this is your opinion and fairly tale without sources. Van was several kilometers from the front and massacres had already occurred in villages. When Armenians inside Van began to prepare defense, he allowed some from villages to get in to make conditions of besieged garrison more difficult. This is basic logic and is cited.

And also, please refrain from racist comments as this one in the above paragraph: conman Armenians (farmers).

(h) section titles are not NPOV. This article needs section titles which are neutral.

Titles are fine and accurately reflect content, not date on which they happen.

Hetoum I 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No replies to Hetoum's argument about merging for a few months now, it's time to merge the articles into the actual one which is Van Resistance. - Fedayee 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Makalp, can you tell us what are you disputing so we can undisputed. --VartanM 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the defintion of "dispute".Must.^{T C} 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition - not really, nice try again, name one thing wrong :)z72.79.62.219 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text added by OttomanRefrence because the source provided for the claim said no such thing. See for yourself. [6] VartanM 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayvdb, I have reverted your insertion of "Armenian Massacre" for the obvious reason that it's a genocide, as the title of the article suggests. - Fedayee (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a rebellion

This article needs much cleanup. It reads, not surprisingly, as a memorial to the Armenians who in reality rebelled against their own government and gave the keys to this old Turkish city to the enemy. They brutalized the Muslims they could get their hands on and eventually failed completely but caused much misery on both sides not mention making it impossible for Armenians who had inhabited these lands for centuries to remain behind. The whole paragraph about governor Jevdet's personality and mood shifts and his bad character was a little too much, and a little amusing. There is much work to be done. I will come back.--Murat (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You, as well as most other users, know that's a blatant lie. The fact that the Ottoman forces goaded Armenians to take up arms is quite well documented, with the clear intention being the extermination of the townspeople themselves. If you wish to alter the reality, rest assured other users will revert you. Historical revisionism is not tolerated.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe calling a user "liar" constitutes a personal attack. I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedai rules again. But I do understand your frustration at the stubborness of facts. One does not need more than the Armenian sources listed here and the content of this article to refute this baseless "self-defence" argument. Notice the prodigious use of "act of self defense, self defensively, etc." in this and similar articles? That alone tells a story. It is described right here at length how Dashnak and Hinchak settled and prospered in Van. What do you think these terrorist organizations were concerned with? Cevdet Paşa (not Djevdet, or Jevdet or Bey)relates in letters to Istanbul how Armenians were in advanced stages of a rebellion in Van, long before the Van Rebellion (isyan). There was no goading however more pleasant this may sound to some. There were long preparations for a rebellion, collaboration with Russians (enemy invading the country), all listed and explained in this very article. What Armenians were up to is throughly documented. I would really like to see some reference that verifies and proves that Cevdet Paşa had intentions and/or orders to "exterminate" the Armenians of Van. We will come back to this again. I highly recommend looking at a mirror occasionally, and taking your own medicine.--Murat (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hudavendigar, no-one is preventing you to support your point. You can add your facts sentence by sentence (fact by fact). However you do not do this. Force on us your conclusions. It works like this: if there is a revolution; the article should include the elements of an rebellion. Current article does not include these elements. The WP:CITE should be your guidance. You should use Template cite book for every fact you brought into the article, so that we can check if those fats are correct. You are constantly forcing us your own conclusion. "I said it is rebellion, You will accept it." does not work as this is not Turkey and you can not force on us 301. --Seemsclose (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have included a book, dedicated solely to Van Rebellion in the reference. It was removed. Skipped over countless authentic Turkish sources and did not even bother to challenge bogus claims by Armenian sources. At some point you folks will have to deal with established facts and stop vandalising real info, complain about fromats and commas and such. To the rest of the World this was a rebellion and that is how it is recorded, from NYT to Turkish records of the time. Facts are well established, not by me. I am not forcing any conclusions, I am just trying to have the relevant facts stick here. I guess that is too much.--Murat (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hudavendigar, using the "title of a book" does not count as a citation! Citations are needed for the "facts". You did not bring any fact into the article. Your changes are limited with the first paragraph, which wikipedia clearly states how to write a WP:LEAD. You can not add arguments that are not supported in the article. The article is full of citations against your position. You have to read the WP:CITE. Also, your own invention "insert footnote text here" is totally unacceptable way of creating citations. The WP:CITE also tells how to object the positions, but as like other Genocide denials, You did not read a basic text. Litteracy of denialists did not changed since Ataturk. Only changed was denialists become more uncivilized, as they become more illiterate. The book you are using (you did not even use the facts inside the book) is full of crap. I bet, You "User:Hudavendigar" did not spend your single "dime" on it, a by product of illiteracy. I bet you have not even read it. You can not tell us what is stated in the page 20 at the 3th paragraph. If this book is the proof of your lie (you claim: "I am not forcing any conclusions" without adding any facts), you are supporting the title of a book without even reading it. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, such bluster and poison. The edit made is exactly where it belongs, in the first paragraph. Rebellion is the very subject of the article. Spend your dime, read the book and keep an open mind.--Murat (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, you performed a "Shame full act," and caught red handed. You tried to use a source which you do not own. It is your "Black Book," as Orhan Pamuk put it correctly. Turks believe things beyond knowing what they believe. You have a position without knowing what it was about, you tried to impose on us. Armenians care for the facts, realities, and look beyond the titles. This article is full with those edits. You did not add a single fact to the article which could prove your point. You can not add your "title" in wikipedia if the article does not support it and it is wp:or. Also, you will not buy or read this book of yours. You are scared to find out how unrealistic its content. If there is no single cite from your book (you claimed in your first message) in this article, because of that single fact. It is easy to believe to a lie ("or to a title"), if not know what is inside the "title". I do my homework. I read the source before defending. Armenians support positions with facts, not using "titles." Seemsclose (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You continue to prove here that maybe you are not capable of making any truly ojective edits and contributions to this topic. Please read over above statements and then judge, if you can, if you sound like a person who can be honest and impartial about what you edit in and out as wiki policies demand. The whole article is about a rebellion. See Webster definition. Argue facts and details. Ranting and spewing is not an argument. I know the topic well though, so you need to do much better. You can not pick and choose references and facts as you wish, especially being so blatantly partial. It does not work that way.--Murat (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except title of a book, you did not add any significant information to the article. You even can not defend why the book is "titled" as it is, because you did not read your own source. You claim that article is full of lies, but They are all backed by internationally accepted publications, page by page referenced. YOU, even, do not know how to use WP:CITE. I showed the article (which is free on this side) 4U hoping that U 'll read, learn and use. But you proved that you did not read the manual and learn how to tag a source, today you performed edits that do not obey the WP:style guide. You claim "I know the topic well though" but you can not back your claims by use of significant sources. Your ignorance also extends: You do not know how the conflict began. You do not know how the details developed. You do not know why it is a rebellion, though you think it is a rebellion. You do not know why Turks turned their guns against civilians, even though you think They are not criminals.. Your edits are WP:POV (not baked by sources) and deemed to be reverted. --Seemsclose (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When finished with personal attacks and general venting and complaints about esthetics, point out what exactly is the problem in calling a rebellion, a rebellion. I did not even attempt a general clean up so sorely needed. Yes, my editing skills are in poor shape and you are more than welcome to help correct those rather than erasing. But get to the argument, go beyond rage and hate.--Murat (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Titles of Books" are not references!!! "The Burning Tigris" does not a reference to a river which burns! the title of the book "Van Rebellion" is not a reference to rebellion of the Armenian people. A reference is something that can be verified, such as a "fact." There is no single fact that defines the activities of Armenians were in a rebellion """""in the article""""". Let me help you to understand: A corrupt police officer comes to your house and shoots your 3 year old child. If you kill that officer, it is not a manslaughter, but self-defense. You claim Van Resistance was a rebellion (manslaughter of the officer), but I claim it is self-defense (defense of their life). Only way you can prove that Van Resistance is a rebellion, if you can prove it is not a "self-defense." You want to "go beyond rage and hate;" find citations (facts) that prove "how the conflict began. How the details of the conflict developed. And if these were precursors of a REBELLION." You did not do it, yet. --Seemsclose (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You will not choose and pick references to suit your distortions. If facts inconvenience you, that is a personal matter. Reference is NOT the title of the book, the book itself, titled "Rebellion at Van" is the reference. It is NOT a novel, but an in depth and scientific review of the events in their proper context. Again, come back to the argument and stop vandalism. Let me help you. Here is the definition of rebellion from Webster's:

Rebellion, Noun

1. Refusal to accept some authority or code or convention; "each generation must have its own rebellion"; "his body was in rebellion against fatigue".

2. Organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another.

I challenge you to show how all the events of the very article you and your likes have constructed does NOT fall into this standard description above. This very article describes in numerous passages "revolting" Armenians. You are confusing the justification for a rebellion with the fact of a rebellion. We can certainly argue if Armenians were morally and otherwise justified in rebelling against their own state, but there is no argument that this was a well organized, enemy supported, armed rebellion against a government. Read this again, maybe it will sink. Reference stays.--Murat (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Put your dime to where your claims are and buy the book. Your nationalism is empty if you do not even read your own publication. People like U claim they will die for their nation, but they do not buy a book, and in the process purge their words using false references!! It is your fault, do not blame anyone, You should stop citing sources that you have not read it. You have to learn how to add information into Wikipedia, read carefully WP:CITE. Learn the rules of the game. This is the last message from me to U. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your constant threats and abuse has become a lttle tiresome. Let's read the actual wiki policy and recommendations on citeations:

"When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are NOT required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view."

Now, which part of this is not clear? What is clear is that you have not read or absorbed these basic common-sense guidelines. You are the least qualified to lecture anyone about etiquette from what I can see. As an ardent defender of a particular POV, it is ironic you should mention this noble wiki policy while you abuse it repeatedly. There is nothing more appropriate than including in the references a book titled "The Armenian Rebellion at Van" in an article that attempts to descibe the said events. Stop vandalism, stop harassment and address the facts. Argue, dispute, reason but stop trying to cover the weakness of your POV by slinging mud and threats. Unless you come up with a good reason why this reference does not belong here, it will be here.--Murat (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone publishes a book titled "Why the Earth is Flat", the mere existance of that book does not allow an editor to add content from it to an entry about the geology of the Earth. Get it? Meowy 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing that with such limited sense of logic and childish arguments you seem to feel qualified to make any judgement here at all. If someone did publish a book titled "Why the Earth is Flat", and actually backed it up with facts and analysis, that would be an interesting read indeed. You are under the impression that you can edit history by editing these pages. It does not work that way. Still no argument WHY these sources are wrong or misleading, details, dates, events, documents etc., thats how you make an argument. Having spent your life here one would think you would learn that by now.--Murat (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be an interesting and amusing read, as quite a lot of the Turkish propaganda is interesting and amusing to read , but none of it would be citable in an encyclopedia entry because, regardless of how full it could be with facts and analysis, the world is not flat. Meowy 23:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Moew: How the infobox is inaccurate

Dear User:Meow; You do not have to insult me by stating "was laughably inaccurate." The Russian relief was part of the conflict. Ottoman fores did left the town as they did not want to involve with two side armed fight. This did not mean they stop fighting against around the province. The Armed conflicts were not limited with the city itself. Thanks--Seemsclose (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the 1 june edit by you because: firstly it was very badly written English, so bad I coundn't really correct it. Secondly, the introductory paragraph is meant to be the briefest possible summary of the article - there is no need to add minor details like the names of participants. Thirdly, the content added to the conflict infobox was not valid. You cannot add flags that were not even invented when the event took place, or armies and their flags (i.e. Russia) that did not have a direct participation in the event. Meowy 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on reading your edit, at first I thought you were some proxy editor for banned Murat, peddling the Armenian rebellion line. An understandable reaction from me, since what other reason could there be for the fabricated history you placed in the conflict infobox? This articel is about a specific incident - the armed resistance of Van's Armenian citizens. It does not deal directly with the wider conflict of WW1 in eastern Turkey, nor directly with events that happened after the siege was lifted. Meowy 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets do it one by one. 1) Against the flags on the info box. Ottoman, and Russian flags were century old. I guess, you have problem with the Armenian flag. Then help me! What could we use? If we can not use flag of Democratic Republic of Armenia, which really did not designed exactly in May 29 1918. 2) "Russia did not have direct participation" O.K if you want to remove Russian flag than which flag "General Trukhin" was using? 3) I'm really tired of this language, argument. You need to explain one by one which grammatical mistakes are there? Because each argument used in the WP:LEAD is already in the article. Thank you. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Armenians of the "City of Van" fought against Ottoman Army by "themselves". That is TRUE. But conflict also included a third party, the "Russians". Denying the fact that Ottoman Army faced two forces, even if Armenian citizens did not get help from Russian Army, is a POV. Do you want to deny the fact that Ottoman Army had two fronts? --Seemsclose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you actually are a propagandist here to peddle Turkish nationalist propaganda? The Van "rebellion" was a conflict about survival, in which the civilian population of Van was compelled to defend itself against those who wished to completely exterminate it. It had nothing to do with countries that did not yet exist. It had nothing to do with advancing Russian armies - not a single Russian soldier fired a single shot during the whole event. There is no place here for your flag-waving lies that it was a rebellion to establish an Armenian Republic inside Ottoman territory. Meowy 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve with a fellow Armenian. But lets drop this "Defense beyond truth." I'm not defending "it is a rebellion." Even the sources I use shows that A) The conflicts extended beyond the city. The map Image:Armeniangenocidemap.gif by Vahagn Avedian, from the website http://www.armenica.org clearly demonstrates this. You can not defend Armenian position if you do not know it. The Armenian defense was not limited with the city. This is also included in the article, as the article points that initial conflict did not begin in the city (read the article). B) Armenian volunteers involved with the conflicts. It is internationally recognized that Khetcho "Commander of cavalry units" died during the follow-up activities of the forces left the city. If you argue, beyond the accepted positions, You are not acting better than the Turks. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Van rebellion took place within the context of the Armenian Genocide, which involved the organised massacres of tens of thousands of Armenians throughout the Van basin. The events detailed in this article are to do with events in and around Van city, not events in that wider genocide (though they could be briefly mentioned later in the body of the article). I had already changed part of the introductory paragraph to read "based mostly in the city of Van" to allow for the fact that fighting directly connected to the siege took place at Varagavank and other nearby locations. But the majority of the event, and the core of the event, took place within the confines of the city of Van. And, as I pointed out earlier, the first paragraph of an article is meant to give only a concise summary of the event - it is not there to repeat everything that is contained in the rest of the article. According to the photo's details, Khetcho died during fighting at Bitlis. Meowy 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Bitlis was in 1916. The Province of Van, during Ottoman Empire extended to western part of Lake Van. Khetcho did not die at Bitlis, the title even clearly say's "close to Bitlis," which was west of Lake Van and in the province of Province of Van. The reason, he died there was they were following the criminals. You are 1) Reshaping the events limited to conflicts in the city. That is WRONG. You have to explain the conflict as it was true to history. 2) we (civilians) fought against Ottoman forces. Russian's fought against the Ottoman forces during the same time, though separate. Ottoman force in the article engaged with "Armenian civilians" (part of Genocide) and Russian forces (part of wider WWI) at the same time. These events happened at the same time in the same "Van basin" that your are mention in your response. The article (also your position) has to be based on Truth. "A concise summary of the event" has to be true to history, giving all the details. Instead of denying Russian forces, you have to mention these two sources (Armenian-Russian) are not linked, though happened at the same time. If you stick to Truth, you are sticking to Armenian position. Seemsclose (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is a f***ing mess, and you aren't helping. Why can't certain editors get it into their heads what an encyclopaedia is for. Why do you feel the need to load this article down even further with useless off-topic information? The entry needs a radical pruning, all the stuff about the hstory of Van, Hamidian massacres, battle of Sarikamish, Persian campaign, should go. Meowy 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was mostly expanded by OttomanReference, an adroit denier, unlike some other editors. The rest of the article comes from various Armenian editors who have attempted to "undo" the damage. For example, we know that there had long been an Armenian presence in Van, but that information (under "History of Van") belongs in the actual Van, Turkey (or Van Province) articles and not here. But now the whole thing reads more like an amateurish jumble of Armenian and Turkish interpretations rather than the concise, informative, and objective article it should be. Hakob (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)