Talk:Defense of Van (1915)

Blatant inaccuracy in timing of deportation and siege

As I was reading this article, I couldn't help but notice the last sentence of the first paragraph "However, the decisions of deportation and extermination were made before the Van resistance." The sentence is linked to a reference by a book by Taner Akcam. Looking at the dates of this siege, it is stated on this page as 19 April – 17 May 1915. Finally, looking at the article on the Armenian_casualties_of_deportations, we can note that the law was put in effect and passed on May 27, 1915. Can somebody explain how the deportation decisions were made before the Van "resistance?" Graffitici (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it telling that no one has reacted to you remarks. But kind of unexpected that no one has taken the time to delete the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

This is strange, so what is the basis for the claim that the non-Armenian casualties of Van do not need any mention in an article about the Van Rebellion? Because it does not matter, because it is not important, becasue it is not related? At least half of all Muslims there were decimated. How can casualties be irrelevant in the casualties section? Silliness of some folks have no boundries. It is comical really.--Murat (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ugh, van rebellion, jews and muslims who died? seems liek another attempt at the denial of armenian genocide and whitewashing the suffering, you can write all about it with NPOV sources in an appropriate article, this is about self defence of armenian civilicans in 1915, not the dissapearence of jews from backwater Ottoman provinces.Ramgavbar (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I added some facts and figures that I went digging to find. Unfortunately I don't have access to the Turkish sources here so most of them related to atrocities against Armenians, though I did find a few about retaliation. Some interesting things I did find was an article in the New York Times dating the rebellion which reported that Armenians were trying to raise volunteers which does suggest evidence that the Armenians were preparing in advance. But I also found a lot of sources regarding Kurdish attacks by the Hamidan, as well as sources that clearly show Cevdet Bey was implicted in this. I don't think its a strech to refer to this as a rebellion, and I think its a special case with the rest of the Armenian genocide, but that is just my opinion.

One thing that should really be addressed in this article is the issue of war propeganda. Going through the articles on the issue, it is so blatantly clear that this information is exaggerated, although in my opinion still based on fact. Examples are "Muslims to build mosques with skulls of Armenians," - c'mon... really? And many of the articles I were looking at used sources from Christian missionaries, or were reproduced in missionary articles, at a time when there was growing pressure for America to enter the war. Just wondering if any one has some information about this perspective that wouldn't violate no original researchGrant bud (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[Citation needed]

Please do not remove the citation needed tags from the article. Armenian sources are not reliable to say something which is not a quote. Then, we should use Turkish sources too, shouldn't we? And what about unreferenced sentences? I wonder what would happen if the unrefenced sentences were in an article about a massacre of Turks. Please be objective. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And anyway, I see that Justin McCarthy is claimed to be not a reliable source because it is linked with Turks. But what about the Armenian authors, aren't they linked directly with the Armenians and write from an Armenian point of view. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Let me show some examples: According to one source, all of the 52 Armenian villages near Doğubeyazıt and Eleşkirt were raided, pillaged and destroyed by the Kurdish Hamidiye. Which source? I added the citation needed tag here, and somebody else tendentiously removed it, claiming that it is tendentious. And an Armenian source: "Razmik Panossian, Armenian Genocide Insert, Vol. 73, No. 16, April 21, 2007" Now, who is Razmik Panossian? Let Armeniapedia say it: Dr. Razmik Panossian’s critically acclaimed book, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, was published in 2006 by Columbia University Press and Hurst & Co. It is based on his PhD dissertation on Armenian identity and nationalism, Wow, very neutral source. This professor is as neutral as a Turkish historian. Don't you easily see that he is an Armenian nationalist? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Columbia University Press is a reliable publishing house, they wouldn't publish garbage. Thus Panossian meets the requirements for reliable sourcing. Contrary to what you seem to think, an author's ethnicity has nothing to do with whether they can be considered reliable. If you read WP:RS, it doesn't say anywhere that Armenians authors are unreliable, does it? And placing 20+ cn tags is highly [[WP:TE|tendentious] btw. Athenean (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, let's say they are reliable. But do you really think that tagging unreferenced sentences/paragraphs is tendentious? Please be objective. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And anyway, removing tags from unreferenced sentences, just because 20+ of them have just been added, and you think that it is tendentious without even analysing the edit - if you have analysed, you could easily see the unrefenced sentences. Then, I have to remind WP:AGF. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just add a tag on top of the article simply saying that this article needs more references instead of going on a tagging binge? Namely, the one bellow.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want the tag on the top of the article, you can add it. But personally, I find the citation needed templete more helpful - at least, it shows where the citation is needed, and anyway, there are 90 sources. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Van Resistance?

I am sorry but it seems as though there is a problem with the title of the article. It reads Van Resistance however the correct definition of resistance is; resisting against an invading force. However the province of Van had been under Ottoman administration for hundreds of years and the invading army was indeed the Russian Imperial Forces. How does this then make it a resistance against the Ottoman Empire when Van was already under Ottoman rule. Surely this would be a rebellion or a battle. This is just not logical. Feel free to (as I am sure people will) correct me if I am wrong and we will have a nice long discussion about it.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First and last warning. Another undiscussed and non-consented move of this article will result in the notification of a Admin. Seems you need to be acquainted with AA and AA2, as if I am to believe you are a "new" editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should refrain from bullying and threatening other editors in your pursuit of historic revisionism. We all know what a revolt or a rebellion is.Murat (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bullying? Threatening?? If you have a problem with me then I urge you to notify an Admin. What I know is, you are far from being able to approach any issue concerning Armenians, Turks or Azerbaijanis with any amount of NPOV, which has been proven by your numerous blocks via AA & AA2. Regards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed bullying "first and last warning" if you hadn't noticed I opened this up to discussion more than a month ago but you failed to respond and so I changed the title. Now that I changed it funnily eneough you responded pretty quickly. I did all attempts to discuss this but you did not, I shall be contacting an administrator. And implying that I am a sock puppet is just outrageous if you have any such claims take it up to the comitee. We all know this is a rebellion and not a resistence, your evasion of replying to me clearly shows this. Next time do reply to a month old talk rather than pouncing when I edit because people fail to talk about it even after a month.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Your "discussion" in April did not mention any source(s) to support your opinion and did not address the reference that sources the first sentence. So why should I have wasted any time refuting your opinion? Simply posting your opinion on a talk page does not give you license to move an article. Oh, FYI, I will edit however I damn well please. Regards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this was a rebellion, by any definition of the word, which we can go in depth here. This is how it is recorded in almost all historic documents and the "resistance" twist seems to have been develpoed later for political reasons. Name of the article has been a problem from the beginning and has been brought up numerous times but shot down by biased editors who seem to have other unrelated agendas. I strongly urge changing the name of the article to its proper and correct version. I strongly urge a tag to the effect asap. The discussion can proceed till there is a concensus. Truth can not and should not be bullied. Murat (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Truth can not and should not be bullied."

Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The implication of the name change is obvious. If this was indeed a rebellion then the Ottoman government was fully justified in putting down an armed insurgency which had chosen to challenge its rule. But this is, of course, the narrative the Ottoman government and later Turkey have been repeating for the past ninety years and the one in which people in Turkey have grown up and are most familiar with, similar to the "stab in the back" myth which the Nazis blamed the Jews for losing World War I. What happened in Van in 1915 was an act of self-defense against a government which was bent on exterminating the city's Armenian population. The same pattern that was observed elsewhere was repeated here: an isolated attack against an oppressive Ottoman official or overbearing Turkish soldiers was taken and magnified in scope. Its details were exaggerated to (or by) central authorities and disseminated (although unconvincingly) to the rest of the world, and thus used as an excuse to attack indiscriminately the entire Armenian population.

Fortunately, we have a number of sources, among which include the account by the American missionary Clarence Ussher and the Venezuelan soldier-of-fortune Raphael de Nogales, who corroborate the Armenian (and Russian military) account that they were simply defending themselves. We cannot simply alter history all because the government in Ankara tells us to do so. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will have to leave logic behind and go through the long, grueling process of stating sources, I shall do my very bit to ensure this name is changed to the correct term. Justin Mcarthy a well known historian in the branch of histories of the Ottman Empire and the Balkans and is currently the professor of history in University of Louisville clearly says that the act was a 'Rebellion and his book can be found here . If you don't see this as enough proof I urge you to look at "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey" by Guenter Lewy, a western political scientist who is a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts. I shall give you a quote as I have the book at hand The title of the section on page 95 reads:

'The Revolt of Van (notice the word revolt) "One of the most important factors in the decision to deport the Armenian community was the uprising at Van. This important city, close to the Russian border and in the heartland of historic Armenia, for a long time had been the center of Armenian nationalist agitation, had developed a strong revolutionary tradition, and was considered a stronghold of Dashnaks. As the Russianswere advancing in to eastern Anatolia in the spring of 1915 Armenians began a revolt aimed at aiding Russian offensive."

If that is not enough, let us look at other sources "The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power" by Sean McMeekin here we can see that he said "Russian arms or no Russian arms the Armenian Partisans of Zeytun rose anyway in April just as the Van Rebellion was getting serious"

You see it is not only Ankara that tells us the correct definitions of things, it is also well acknowleged historians, profesors.You said that the American missionary as a source, I must however notify you that she/he is a primary source therefore must be featured in other secondary sources to state as a fact, primary sources are not deemed relible due to the possible biast they may have (the missionary in a muslim empire doesn't seem reliable to me) however historians (secondary) sources like mine are reliable. My claim is supported by sources, I see no reason as to not change the title. Thank you, Regards Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes we are all familiar with Mssrs. McCarthy and Lewy. The Wikipedia article on Mr. McCarthy shows how unqualified he is to be discussing this topic and demonstrates how a long list of scholars have criticized him for his lack of impartiality and deliberate neglect of sources which might contradict or weaken the strength of his central thesis. Mr. Lewy holds a somewhat higher reputation than McCarthy but his position on the Armenian Genocide is no less controversial and both these individuals have been dubbed by the academic world as genocide denialists. And sorry, McMeekin who?

Well what sources do you think the historians have relied upon thus far? Ussher may be a primary source but his work is extremely important and tried-and-failed excuse of him being a Christian missionary (and thus being biased) has not prevented most scholars from accepting his book as an honest eyewitness account of the resistance. In addition to him and other sources, I doubt that McCarthy, Lewy or McMeekin have consulted (or are even able to read) the memoirs of those who fought in the resistance itself, which are invariably written in Armenian. By far the best modern account of the event belongs to Anahide Ter Minassian, who makes use of a wide range of sources in her chapter "Van 1915" in Armenian Van/Vaspurakan, edited by Professor Richard G. Hovannisian, and published in Costa Mesa, CA in 2000. So who is one to believe: the Ottoman government, which had an obvious interest in portraying the Van Armenians as revolutionaries and bandits and had a history of distorting events to justify its disproportionate and punishing actions, or the rest of the world, which has answered and corrected the allegations put forth by its propaganda?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MB, here is who Mcmeekin is:

SeanMcMeekin, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University.[1], his book's main focus is The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power. Doesn't sound like a book focused on events in Van.

And Lewy isn't a historian, but a political scientist, his book fails any serious amount of historical research(I should know, I own it)!

Compared to these books, with a focus on Van and/or Armenians during World War I, that state "resistance":

Massacres, resistance, protectors: Muslim-Christian relations in Eastern ... By David Gaunt(Professor of History, Södertörn University College, Stockholm, Sweden), Jan Beṯ-Şawoce, p139

The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response By Peter Balakian, p209

Resistance and revenge: the Armenian assassination of the Turkish leaders By Jacques Derogy, 12

At the crossroads of Der Zor: death, survival, and humanitarian resistance ... By Hilmar Kaiser, Nancy Eskijian, Luther Eskijian, p8 --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy indeed that we are discussing this subject, for without discussion we can never hope to reach the true, truth about the incidents of 1915. Now, I still hold to my belief that the missanary is bias, however this may just be my "narrow mind" for it is outrageous to even dwell on the tought that a Christian missonary who has sympathies, which lie with fellow Christians, should not be able to give an objective view. That aside I have Guenter Lewy's book at hand, and I am now seraching the bibliography to site those "doubted" memoirs. From what I can see from the bibliography there are many reports, not just Ottoman ones but also foring reports dating August 7th 1915 August 12 1915 and so forth; there are also diaries of the Danish missonary and many other memiors as well as reports preticularyly reports from the United States for example Davis report of February 9, 1918 and many more. As we can see Mr Lewy's research is comprehensive and reliable enough to bear weight. To add to this we can consider the memiors of those that fought in the rebellion bias to even include would we include the memiors of me for example if I were an Ottoman soldier? You see my friend, by saying b far the best is your own point of view please see[[[POV]]] to add to this the some of the sources you have mentioned have been written by professors of Armenian decent for example: Anahide Ter Minassian, Richard G. Hovannisian, Nancy Eskijian, Luther Eskijian, Peter Balakian. You see most sources you have given do have a vested interest to promote the Armenian cause (if you don't mind me saying so). I do not give you Turkish or Azeri professors due to the possible biases they may have and neither should you with Armenian ones. We should choose, like I have done neural western professors. Now let us look at Taner Akcam. At first glance one would assume him to be credible due to his Turkish ethnicity and speaking against the Turks. However when we look deeper we will see that he maintains financial connections with the Sargzyan family (I shall provide a link later on please forgive me, I don't have any time today). To add to this he is an associate professor meanining he is not a full professor and is trumped by the three professors I gave. Releating to the fact that Guenter Lewy is not a historian. Anybody who researches and writes about history is a historian so that point is void. Thank you for reading, to conclude this the professors I have presented have done research on the matter and produced material which is reliable. They are neutral as they are not a member of the conflicting parties therefore my point is further reenforced where as the sources you have given are mostly from professors of Armenian decent. Thank you, regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You truly do not know anything about Lewy's historiography regarding his book. His intentional cherry picking of Ussher is unscholarly and reeks of willful ignorance. Anyone that ignores the majority of Ussher's book and instead has to sensationalise how an Armenian child ran through the hospital killing Ottoman POWs, is truly an incompetent "historian". A pity that Lewy also omits that Jevdet Bey reports the Van Armenians as "in rebellion", a true indication where that ideology originates. Lewy also blatantly ignores Rafael de Nogales observations(like the statement that the Armenian stance was purely defensive) or how Nogales witnessed Turkish army units photographing their own weapons, claiming they had been found in Armenian houses and churches, but instead cherry picks sentences from that source as well.

How long has Taner Akcam been working for Sargzyan family??

If we are to remove/ignore comments from German, Austrian, Swiss missionaries then there is no reason to continue this discussion. What is next? That there were no massacres? There wasn't a plan of deportation to the desert of Deir ez-Zor CampsDer Zor(assuming the Armenians made it that far)? That only Armenians located near the Caucasus Front were in this plan of deporation? That no Armenians were removed from Constantinople and executed?

As I have briefly outlined, Lewy's "research" has a singular focus and can easily be shown to be incomplete and inept.

As for Mcmeekin(whose book is not focused on massacres/Armenian Genocide), the singular quote reeks of more cherry picking via books.google.com.

"To add to this we can consider the memiors of those that fought in the rebellion bias to even include would we include the memiors of me for example if I were an Ottoman soldier.", according to you Nogales can not be used and he was an Ottoman officer! I guess you, like Lewy, are busy censoring what you do not want to read/hear.

Bloxham, "The Great Game of Genocide", p70-71, calls it the "Van uprising", then simply Armenian rising and Van rising.

I have given 5 references specifically related to massacres/Armenian genocide, along with page numbers and all you can dig up is Lewy?

So far I do not see any viable reason to change the title of this article to "Van Rebellion" for this article. Regards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I honestly cannot wrap my head around this obsession with the ethnic or national identity of scholars which editors continue to bring up. The ethnic background of a scholar has no bearing to his ability to live up to the standards set by the scholarly community. What makes Richard Hovannisian or Anahide Ter Minassian such outstanding historians is the expertise they bring to their fields. They have been educated in fine educational establishments, can read in multiple languages (including Armenian and Turkish) and have been brought up to study these topics with respect to what actually took place. Unlike Lewy or McCarthy, they don't try to advance any secret agenda and do not quote the sources selectively. Lewy cannot read in Armenian and I doubt that he has even consulted the memoirs of the Armenians who took part in the city's defense. And the suggestion that Akcam is somehow being paid by the Sargsyan family in Yerevan to write his books and propound his position sounds so absurd that it doesn't even merit reply. That comment alone almost discredits your arguments entirely.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very old argument. Arguments about this inaccurate name of the article were made previously here, over a year ago. There was strong opposition by certain parties who seem to have a vested "interest" in portraying the rebellion at Van in a certain manner. Why not cut to the chase on this? Here is the defintion of "rebellion" in Wikipedia:

Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state. On the one hand the forms of behaviour can include non-violent methods such as the (overlapping but not quite identical) phenomena of civil disobedience, civil resistance and nonviolent resistance. On the other hand it may encompass violent campaigns.

Here is what Webster says:

opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government

It fits like a glove obviously and not surprising at all. Not even remotely, the rebellion at Van, where a group resists the established order or authority or government in an armed struggle, can be categorized as anything but a rebellion. It is a mystery why such an inappropriate title has survived this long. Motivations and refusal to consider basic established facts and defintions need to be questioned at some point. I strongly urge to get this title back to reality. Murat (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kansas please keep your own point of view out of the discussion. It is irrelevent which sources he used and which he ommited. For you can not use all the sources available. What matters is that a professor has used primary sources which he belived were reliable to come to a conclusion. Your point of view on the sources he used is void for he is an expert at his field of study. In addition to the ones ethnicity does matter when it comes down to historians, this is especially the case when there are two ethnic groups at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Their ability to come to a neutral and objective conclusion is placed under question. I can give many a Turkish and Azeri historians who deny the massacres however they would have vested interests in doing so, just like Armenian historians would do too. Therefore I am not giving any such names and neither should you. I also agree with Murat the meaning of the term rebellion fits quite perfectly with the events in Van and thus should be used. I also would like to admit that I have a vested interest. A vested interest in the portrayal of history in the most accurate, truthfull and objective way. This should be so for all us editors. Thank you, regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Compared to your POV in April that brought no sources but was good enough, in your opinion, to move an article without consensus? Compared to your POV concerning any Armenian name that happens to appear as an author? Compared to your POV that NO primary sources(Ussher,Nogales,Christian missionaries) should be used since they both say things you do not want to hear. Compared to Murat who has not contributed to the discussion except for whining about truth. No, I would say that your POV has been used to set up a situation, whereby you can ignore any other sources brought to this discussion. Oh, and since you have conveniently not mentioned them; Kaiser is not Armenian, Gaunt is not Armenian, Bloxham is not Armenian, Jacques Derogy is not Armenian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My only aim for this page is to promote it in a neutral stance. This is why I am excluding Armenian and Turkish and Azeri professors and scholars for none can provide an objective, nuetral view of history through the tainted glasses of a national cause. I am being nuetral in my langauge, for my POV incolves Turkish and Azeri scholars too. Wikipedia actualy says that primary sources are not as reliable as secondary sources and should be used if there are a few secondary sources to support the notion the primary source is supporting. I have only expressed this and this only. I am not wikipedia gaming, I have acknowleged that there is two sides to this story however the side which you provided was mainly supported by Armenian scholars to which I have expressed my concern to. Whereas the side I provided featured no Turkish or Azeri schoalrs but neutral ones. I say we discuss the non-Armenian sources that you have mentioned but how am I supposed to do that if I am not provided the links for their books. I have provided links to the books I have presented.I have however looked at some of the books I could find one by David Gaunt which says alleged "Van revolt" however in the page you have given, it does not talk indepth about what actualy happened due to the shallowness of this page I see no indication as to not calling is rebellion. The book by Jacques derogy can not be accsed through goodle books because it have limited preview can you please provide a link to it .Thank you, I wish you the best Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Tugrul: it is very relevant what sources he used and what he omitted because that implies that he was selective with those sources that might possiblly contradict his conclusions. And as his biographical entry on Wikipedia makes clear, Lewy is hardly a non-controversial author. He seems to believe in Holocaust exclusivity, i.e., a fringe opinion that the one true genocide in the recent past was that of the Jews', and not of other peoples', going to extreme lengths to discredit the suffering that the Armenians, the Roma, the American Indians, and others were subjected to. This seems to explain the position that he takes up on the Armenian Genocide. While the worst level of criticism that can be leveled against historians like Hovannisian or Ter Minassian is their desire to bring the history of modern Armenia into greater light, the same cannot be said of scholars working in Turkey or Azerbaijan, whose writings are essentially controlled by the one narrative their governments peddle. That's the basic difference; one set of scholars are working for and abiding by the standards accepted in Western academia while the other is engaged in what all respected commentators can best be described as disingenuous historical revisionism. In any case, this conversation is going in circles and I'm going to ignore further comments which are so egregiously erroneous and deceptively misleading.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be called as "Van Revolt". Some sources:[2][3]Abbatai 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You can call it as "Van Rebellion", "Van Resistance", "Van Revolt" etc...... Takabeg (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and so far I belive it is 4 in favour of name change and 2 against it. However I shall try to persuade the remaining. Marshall, you are correct the sources he uses is very much important. However your interpretation on weather they are reliable or not isn't for it is your own point of view against a professors. And one would assume a reliable sources such as a professor uses sources from a variaty of places. You must also understand that wikipedia does not quote wikipedia, so please refrain from doing so. In addition to this, which scholar who writes about the so called genocide, isn't controversial. For example; one of Akcam's sources of financing is the prominent Cafesjian Foundation. This Armenian foundation, according to the report, is partly responsible for the payment of Akcam's upkeep at his current headquarters, the University of Minnesota. When there are two camps, to sides to a scholarly debate each side tries to refute each other which explains the controversial records of all sides, including Lewy. I can also say that Guenter Lewy is not a fringe opinion for in order to be so he must be the only one supporting his notion. However as we can see from the few examples I have provided, he most definately is not fringe. Again you see you are bringing out own point of view in to the discussion by saying that the Armenian professors provided only wish to promote the truth and thats the worst possible allegation made against them which is clearly your own POV. You also say that "the same cannot be said of scholars working in Turkey or Azerbaijan, whose writings are essentially controlled by the one narrative their governments peddle." this again is POV. Do you have any proof of this conspiracy that they say what the government wants them to say? By assuming they do say what the government says you are unveiling the fact that you bear predisposed opinions about Turks and Azeris. However I on the other hand belive to have a fair balance we must exclude the professors of the conflicting parties and focus on neutral professors. If you do ignore any further comments I will assume the discussion has ended and it has ended in a 2 against and 4, for the change which would mean we can change the title. Thank you, I wish you best, Regards Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you are in a big hurry to end this discussion. What a joke. Pity you had to canvass two editors that have been blocked and banned by AA and AA2. Birds of a feather........... Actually, this reeks of tendentious editing.

FYI, it is a pity you can not see beyond your own agenda, Akcam wrote his doctorate thesis in 1996(concerning the Armenian Genocide). LONG before any association with any Armenian Foundation.

And stop parading Lewy around like he is some sort of messiah. It proves nothing, while you blantantly ignore the sources I have provided.

All you have accomplished is ignoring those you disagree with, while making up rules as to what sources can and can not be used. Sad when you have to ignore a multitude of sources just to further Turkish propaganda.

Other cases of resistance:

A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, By Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, Norman M. Naimark, p5.

Empire, colony, genocide, By A. Dirk Moses, p337.

An uprising as a last ditch desperate attempt to avert imminent destruction:

America and the Armenian genocide of 1915, By J. M. Winter, p67.

I do not see any Armenians mentioned as authors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my long break, I had other important matters to attend to. I assure you that I am not a bigg hurry to leave any discussions for I do not shy away from them, please check my record. I can also say that I have canvassed noone but people have turned up on their free will, if you have any such proof of me canvassing please say so rather than making flase accusations. Now that a side I can go back to the sources you have presented me but before I do so, please scroll up, I have written about the sources you have presented to me before- well the ones that I could acess for you provided no link to them. Sources presented:

• A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire I looked for this on google books but it came up as No Priview thefore I could not check the given page.
• Empire, colony, genocide the author does indeed use the word resistance, that is good. However the primary source which he uses the support his idea if from Anahide Ter Minassian who is an Armenian. Should this source not cast a shadow on the conclusion that the professor came to. I'll let you to decide that for who am I to judge a professor. However the same professor also uses the term rising notice that he has shied from the term uprising but the word rising means the same as uprising.
• America and the Armenian genocide of 1915 in this source the author even uses the term uprising to describe the events. He/She describes the motives for this uprising but still uses the term uprising and not resistance. It is not up to us to coin names to events, it is up to professors which he, as a professor has done.

Lastly, I do not parade Lewy around as a Mesiah, we mearly discussed his reliability in debth, this does not mean he is my "Mesiah". As you can see the sources you have provided actualy say it was an uprising I realy do not see how it can be argued the contrary. I thank you for your time, Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As to the title of this article, "Van Revolt" is not common use today. Maybe it was contemporary name of this incident. It's just like the case of the term "Sheikh Said Rebellion", that was called as "Genc Incident" at that time (Mustafa Kemal aslo used the term "Genc Incident"). I think you can chose from "Van Rebellion" and "Van Resistance". Takabeg (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of "Siege of Van (1915)" ? Takabeg (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think the name of the article should be changed to something less POV. Other historians not yet mentioned like Erickson and Bloxham agree that the Van rebellion was pre planned and well organized. This article does seem to favour the Armenian version far too much and does not aknowledge the activities of the Russian backed ARF in Van Sasparella (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, let me also remind you of Bar Kokhba revolt this was the revolt against the Roman rule. Romans killed about 580,000 including civilians however as we can see it is called Revolt rather than resistance. There are many other examples of this. This article for me seems to be a POV push, where many professors, reliable western ones both you and I have given are taken aside. I can not see how it can be argued any thing else. I declare that the title should be changed promptly to reflect the sources and examples given as well as the consensus reached by the wider academia. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1915 "Van Revolt" -Llc -13
• 1915 "Revolt at Van" -Llc - 31 (but Raymond Kévorkian used this term for denial of the "Revolt")
• 1915 "Revolt of Van" -Llc - 21 (but Raymond Kévorkian used this term for denial of the "Revolt")
• 1915 "Van Resistance" -Llc -6
• 1915 "Resistance of Van" -Llc - 5
• 1915 "Resistance at Van" -Llc -9
• 1915 "Van Rebellion" -Llc - 38
• 1915 "Rebellion of Van" -Llc -2
• 1915 "Rebellion at Van" -Llc -22
• 1915 "Siege of Van" -Llc - 82
• 1915 "Defence of Van" -Llc -6
• 1915 "Revolution at Van" -Llc -5

Takabeg (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Takabeg for supplying us with information. Now I will look superficialy at the sources provided. We can see that 8 books feature the title "Revolt/Revolution at Van" where as there is only 4 releating to the "resistence or defense" we can also see that there is one exceptional case of "siege of Van". In addition to this there are the books I provided from Western, professors who is not a party in any of the two conflicting sides. I have also given examples e.g. Bar Kokhba Revolt and Tagabeg has given the example of Seihkh Said Revolt. Bearing these all in ones mind we can clearly see the case for changing the title to Revolt/Rebellion is much stronger that keeping it as Resistance. Nevermind the dictionary definition of Rebellion which strengthens my proposal furthermore. I hope to wait for a reply, many thanks, Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rica ederim. Ancak the Van Rebellion + Rebellion of Van + Rebellion at Van (38+22+2=62) is the naming based on the POV of the "government of the Ottoman Empire", on the other hand, the Van Resistance + Resistance of Van + Resistance at Van (6+5+9=20) is based on the POV of "Armenians of Van". If there were not more neutral alternatives, we could chose major one in quantity. Now, as we know, there is more neutral alternative name Siege of Van (82) (even siege engines were never used in this battle :)), we'd better chose it. , Takabeg (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Halil Bey (Kut)

The article saids

After the order for mobilization, Djevdet became the subordinate of the 3rd Army under the command of Miralay Halil Bey (Kut)[citation needed]

But, as long as I know, Halil Bey (became Pasha in 1916) have never become the commander of the 3rd Army. Takabeg (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Ali İhsan Sâbis, Djevdet abandoned the city on the night between 16 May and 17 May and retreated toward Bahkale and joined the 1st Expeditionary Force...

 Done

Takabeg (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

36th Infantry Division

According to Erickson, The 36th Infantry Division finally arrived from Mesopotamia and took up positions along the southern flank of the Third Army near Lake Van. He shows, in the footnote, William Edward David Allen Allen and Paul Muratoff's Caucasıan Battlefield.

According to Ali İhsan Sâbis, ... 1915 Mayıs nihayetinde, Dördüncü Orduya bağlı Onikinci Kolordunun Halep civarında bulunan 36 ncı Fırkanın Üçüncü Ordu emrine vermiştir...Otuzaltıncı Fırka yerine daha iyi bir fırka gönderilmesi Üçüncü Ordu Kumandanı rica etmiş ise de kabul olunmamış ve bir kaç gün sonra bu fırkanın Halep'ten şimendüferle Telli'ebyaz istasyonuna sevkine başlanmıştır. 36 ncı Fırka, Diyarbakır üzerinden Bitlis istikametinde yürüyecekti, iki taburiyle 8 Haziran'da Diyarbakır'dan hareket etmiş olan 36 ncı Fırkanın ancak Haziran sonlarına doğru Bitlis'te toplanması mümkündü....

Şu suretle Birinci Kuvvei Seferiyeden başka, Beşinci Kuvvei Seferiye ile 36 ncı Fırka da bir müddet sonra Ordunun sağ cenaına, Bitlis tarafından bununacaktı.

...Van Jandarma Fırkası geri alınarak Tatvan'a celbolundu. Bu esnada 36 ncıFırkanın ilk kademesi 27/6/1915 de Butkus'e muvasalet etmiş olduğundan tedricen bu fırka Reşadiye tarafına sürüldü; ve 44 üncü alay Birinci Kuvvei Seferiye'ye iade olundu.

In short, Ali İhsan Sâbis wrote that the first group of the 36th Infantry Division arrived at Bitlis on June 27, 1915.

Could the 36th Infantry Division arrive at the battlefield at Van by May 17, 1915 ? Takabeg (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Van Resistance → Siege of Van (1915) – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE

First of all, it's clear that the Van Resistance (+ Resistance of Van + Resistance at Van) is not common name of this battle　(1915 "Van Resistance" -Llc 6 + 1915 "Resistance of Van" -Llc 5 + 1915 "Resistance at Van" -Llc 9 = 20). Furthermore this name is based on the POV of "Armenians of Van".

Altough Van Rebellion (+ Rebellion of Van + Rebellion at Van) is more "popular" than Van Resistance (1915 "Van Rebellion" -Llc 38 + 1915 "Rebellion of Van" -Llc 2 +1915 "Rebellion at Van" -Llc 22 = 62), this name is based on the POV of the "government of the Ottoman Empire".

Now, as we know, Siege of Van (1915 "Siege of Van" -Llc 82) (even siege engines were never used in this battle :)) is the most common name in quantity. If my memory serves me correctly, Atom Egoyan also used this name. Moreover, this title is more neutral than others. And to distinguish from Siege of Van (1574) (existing article Siege of Van, 1574), we'd better add (1915) to this title. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand perfectly where you are coming from but I don't see Van Rebellion as just the POV of the Ottoman Government. This is because the term is used in a wide cirle of the current academia thus meaning it is a point of view with wide consensus. Saygilar, Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Though it is a rebellion by definition of the word as all agree, and how it has been recorded in the country where it takes place (by Armenians too most likely) AND it is the common usage by far as proven here again, it is still "wrong" to call it a rebellion? So if some Ottoman official were to have stated that Earth is round, it would be a POV statement to cite it here? I am having a hard time following the logic. What exactly is wrong calling a rebellion a rebellion again? Admittedly the proposed name is slightly less POV than the current one. Murat (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with Murat.Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Siege of Van 1915?

The above clearly shows that we did not support the name change to Siege of Van but supported name change to Van Rebellion/Revolt. Please clarify why the name change cahnged the name to Siege of Van.Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While I would still prefer Van Resistance, Siege of Van sounds fine. Van Rebellion is, again, the term employed by the pro-Turkish publications and, as most respectable scholars agree, does not accurately reflect of what occurred in Van in 1915: a self-defense action by the Armenians against a government which wished to exterminate them. Van wasn't the first nor the last time the Ottoman government would use a "False flag"-like operation to make it appear that they were just quelling rebellions or responding to internal crises.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to see a new face in these discussions, I warmly welcome you. If you look at the original discussion I have shown many nuetral publications and have insisted on not showing any biased Turkish or Azeri publication. The publications I listed support the term Rebellion, the fact that they are western professors show us that this is not a pro-Turkish stance but just a stance supported by a wide circle of academia. The question of self-defense is open to debate with sources further on however the name itself doesn't concern it. What concerns the name is the frequency of its use in scholarly publications which in this case Van Rebellion takes precedence. I am sorry but I do not believe in conspiracies and false flag operations in any instance. What I belive is what I see and what I see is a wide cirle of western who are not a member of the two ethnic sides, supporting the name Van rebellion and not Siege of Van. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because they hail from the West doesn't mean they're not biased. Their scholarship has been characterized as shoddy by a wide range of authorities who have studied the issue far in depth than they have. Lewy is not an expert in the field of Armenian-Turkish studies while McCarthy's works have been subject to strong criticism. What you do or do not believe is not an issue here but it's indisputable that the Turks typically exaggerated isolated, minor events (the attempted assassination of a police chief, the ambush of a foot patrol, etc.) as proof that the Armenians were in revolt and used them as excuses to treat everyone else in a village or town as rebels. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop throwing out claims but substantiate them with reliable evidence. Who has characterized their work as shoddy? Who are the authorities? Who has studied it far more "depth"? Any one who has written a book upon the subject and has reserached the subject in debth as well as going to meetings concerning the subject is deemed as an expert. Indicating otherwise is mearly slander. Who has criticised Mcarthy's work? You also seem to have predisposed opinions of the Turks "its indisputable that the Turks typically exaggerated isolated, minor events" well it is disputed because books that support two sides are written so to say it indisputable is a very bias tone. Please stop doing original research and provide sources. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reply to my reply. I must again underline the fact that the original discussion was opened and closed in favour of the name change to Van Rebellion. The second semi discussion initiated by Tagabeg resulted inconclusively, with two votes for and two votes against. Under the strong weight of reliable sources the name of the article must be changed to Van Rebellion. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is read Mr. McCarthy's page on Wikipedia and see the long list of names of scholars who have critiqued his works and methodology. And again, these sort of declarations to introduce or make drastic and controversial sections by claiming that they are supported by reliable sources, when they clearly are not, are looked down upon and once more subject to being reverted. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You are limiting the sources I and Tagabeg have shown to only McCarthy. But lets see who he is being criticised by Dadrian and Hovannisian, all of which are the leading scholars in the "pro" "genocide" side. Therefore it is natural for both parties to be critical of each other. However McCarthy is also praised by Donald Bloxham who is a professor of genocidal studies as well as Guenter Lewy.The name should be changed to Van Rebellion as my original proposal stated. Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you still here ? Let's talk about Talk:Six Armenian vilayets#Requested move. Takabeg (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am still here. This is because my proposal was to change the name to Van Rebellion and I stated many sources to back this up. In addition to this, you, in your own post showed the numerical weight of sources on the side of Van Rebellion also. I can not understand this change. The request move wasn't even supported by a wide consensus and there was limited to no discussion conducted upon the move, which is quite contrary to my proposal which was discussed for weeks. Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Siege of Van is most common name. If we couldn't have found more neutral one like "Siege of Van", the "Van Rebellion" could have been one of the candidates. But since we found more neutral one, it's natural to chose it per WP:POVTITLE, WP:NPOV. I make advance reservation to oppose to "Van Rebellion" :) Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Revolt at Van= 32 Van Revolt= 13 Van Rebellion= 38 Rebellion at Van= 23 in total refferal to Rebellion is 106. Therefore contrary to what you are saying Van Rebellion is the most common name.Tugrulirmak (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please reply to my comment, much appreciated,Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Siege of Van - "Siege of Van" is the most common name for this topic and the 1915 event is the likeliest article to be sought for with that name. Neelix (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Siege of Van (1915) → Siege of Van –

• It already redirects, so there is no need for the parenthesis. Srnec (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• This was just moved a few days ago. Best to fully discuss if this is the primary topic. Also, the correct name for this article is still being discussed on the talk page and it could be changed. So this move would not be wise at this point in time. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - No need for this discussion. It can be speedied. Marcus Qwertyus 00:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  I thought so. Srnec (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  Comment there's a hatnote, so a discussion is better, to see if a disambiguation page should have existed instead. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment according to Siege of Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that pagename used to be the article Siege of Van (1547) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and not this article. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question - Can someone say why it's clear that Siege of Van (1915) is a better choice for the primary topic than Siege of Van (1547)? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

I am currently going through all the sources listed in the article and will conduct a detailed assesment of them which will then be shared with my fellow editors. However my little quest has hit a snag. Many of the sources are books, books which can not be accessed through any other means but buying them. How can I check these sources? I need people who have inserted there the sources to provide links to them. If there are no links I kindly request a scan of the page at hand.Thank you for your cooperation, Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not mentioned?

This Turkish gov article (citing the city musuem) brought me here. But I searched for "Zeve" in this article but got no results.

There's only this:

"On 14 May, a Friday evening, a group of ships sailed from Van. More ships followed the next day. Turks were evacuating their women and children. ... These retreating Ottoman forces experienced logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication."

Apparently nothing is written here about these who were not evacuted (and this evacuation was covered so briefly before the section named "The first evacuation" for some reason) while the Ottomans were "experiencing logistical shortages". An oversight? Or did really nothing bad at all happened to them after the fall of the city to the Russians and Armenians?

According to the Wikipedia article Van, Turkey,

"Based on the official 1914 Ottoman Census the population of Van province consisted of 179,422 Muslims and 67,797 Armenians.[11] The Ottoman Census figures include only male citizens, excluding women and children. According to a more recent research, the corrected estimates for Van province (including women and children) was; 313,000 Muslims, 130,000 Armenians, and 65,000 others, including Assyrians.[12]"

That's quite a lot of people (hundreds of thousands), and actually is seems there were a lot more of them than Armenian citizens of the city just before WWI. So, what exactly happened to them during and after the fighting? Isn't it worth being explained to the readers?

Also the field "Casualties and losses" in the article's infobox is completely empty for the Turkish side, while the section "Casualties" (and it's sub-sections, "Atrocities" and "Reports and reactions") in the main body is covering exclusively Armenians too. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also I find it rather strange that out of some 130,000 Armenians in the province (including tens of thousands adult men) allegedly only 1300 fought - this claim should be probably double-checked. Plus, the infobox is oddly not mentioning the Russian forces at all. --Niemti (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And Van city musuem has a whole section about it (described in quite broken English, yes):

3- The Section Of The Armenian Massacres This section was inaugurated on 2 April 1990, the freedom from occupation day of Van. It is organized with the aim of documenting the massacre undertaken by the Armenians during the occupation of Van in 1915 by the Russian troups reinforced with the Armenian brigands. Skeletons of the murdered Turks who died during the massacre at the Çavuşoğu Hay field of the Erciş District of Van and findings from the Zeve massacre where nearly 2500 Turks were killed at Zerve Village of the central District are exhibited. Among the findings revealed at a day-long archaelogical and anthropological excavation undertaken at Zerve by the Van Museum Directorate on 2 April 1990.[4]

So what were the Ottoman losses, and what exactly happened to these over 300,000 Muslim civilians there, who were apparently a majority? The article seems to not be not explaining these issues at all, besides mentioning an "evacuation of women and children" (despite "logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication") in just one sentence before discussing "the first evacuation". --Niemti (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For the city of Van, 2/3rds of the population was Armenian. Almost all the rest were Kurds. In the 1890s Lynch gives the ethnic Turkish population of the city of Van at just some 900 people. No Turks at all lived in the villages. For Van's hinterland the Kurdish/Armenian populations were probably more equal. In the 19th century the Ottoman government changed the borders of the Van vilayet in order to make Armenians a minority population there. They added almost exclusively Kurdish-populated areas like Hakkari to it. No Russians fought during the siege - so why should there be figures for them in the infobox? How do you expect 130,000 Armenians to fight without weapons? Unarmed civilians don't appear as combatants in conflict infoboxes. The 1300 figure will be the armed Armenian force. All the opposing forces, Turkish army regulars or Kurdish irregulars, were armed. The Turkish army, government officials, and some Kurdish forces were evacuated. The rest of the Kurds just melted away back to the hills from where they came - some then fled westward towards the Ottoman lines with their entire tribal groups. Meowy 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a long internet history about the Zeve monument, probably all of it is lost history now. In the early 1990s there was a crazy American (he was actually committed for about 6 months) who used to go around message boards, especially AOL ones, posting Turkish propaganda regarding Zeve, and inflated impossible figures for Turks killed. Aparently he went crazy after his business, a shop named "Turkish Bazar", closed down due to lack of customers. He blamed its failure on Armenians who had objected to the shop's name and took it upon himself to post Genocide denialist material everywhere, almost all of it was about Van and Zeve. Meowy 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I said "Ottomans" and "Muslims", not "Turks". So, what happened to them (the combatants and civilians) during and after the incident - I couldn't get the info on it from the article at all.

• "No Russians fought during the siege"

This is what Wikipedia article Siege of Van says: "On 6 May, a major Russian offensive toward Anatolia developed.[38] The Ottoman defense lines consisted of the X and XI Corps and the 5th Expeditionary Force at the north flank located beyond the province of Van.[38] The north flank of the Russian advance, from Tortum valley toward Erzurum was not part of the operations in Van. However, as part of this Russian offensive, the Ottoman 1st Expeditionary Force and the Van Cavalry Brigade were pushed back from their initial positions by Russian and Armenian voluenteers [sic] advancing toward the city of Van.[38] On 12 May, the town of Ardjish at the north of province of Van was relieved. Djevdet sent one cannon and two hundred men from the city of Van to face this group at the Bargiri (Muradiye). It was a late move and far too weak to stop this advance. On 6 May, the conflicts around the citadel of Van (in the Kale District) were over.[76] [...] On 17 May, Armenian civilian forces had control of the town. At the same time, the advance guard of the Russian forces, which pushed the 1st and 3rd Ottoman Cavalry Brigades from the city of Malazgirt since 11 May, reached the north of the province and extended up to the shores of Lake Van. At the same time, the advance guard of the Russian forces that were already in the town pushed the Ottoman forces with a continued press to the south of city. These retreating Ottoman forces experienced logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication. Soon after the Russian regulars followed them.[80]"

It clearly says there was "the advance guard" of Russian regulars in the city during to the Ottoman retreat (and civilian evacuation) and the city rebels the Ottomans in Van even dispatched a part of their forces to help stop "Russian and Armenian voluenteers" that were incoming. --Niemti (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not count anything on Wikpedia to be a legitimate source. No Russians fought during the siege of Van and the events there were not part of a wider military campaign by the Ottoman forces. A few years ago this article was ruined by another editor who POV-warred this article to death by adding vast amounts of off-topic material to it. You said "Ottomans" and "Muslims", not "Turks" - but the Turkish propaganda about Zeve says Turks. Meowy 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care what "the Turkish propaganda says", I'd like this article to explain to me what happened to the Ottoman combatants (their losses, currently there's not a word about them) and the fate of the non-Christian, non-Armenian civilian population (the article only mentions their partial evacuation by ships, in just 1 sentence while somehow not even counting it as "the first evacuation" and not talking about their return at all). Can I get it? --Niemti (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And if Turkish Wikipedia article counts as "the Turkish propaganda", it says 62% of the entire Muslim population of the province died. So, how many of them really died, how many were evacuated, how manyon their own fled, and so on? I have no idea, and the English Wikipedia skips the issue altogether. Right now it's completely Armenian-centric and so needs to be globalized. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel this conversation is going nowhere constructive. The editor I mentioned earlier ruined this article by filling it with off-topic material, you seen to be wanting to add even more off-topic material. The siege of Van resulted from the response by the town's population to genocide (and - given escape was impossible - it was the only response they could make, short of lying down and meekly waiting to be killed). It was not directly connected to the wider military conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire or the troop movements of their armed forces. Meowy 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wh-what? How is military and civilian losses of a warring side "off-topic material"? This is already covered -but only for the Armenian side exclusively. There's "Infobox military conflict", but one field in "Casualties and losses" is empty (and the other lists only civilians, btw). --Niemti (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And even in purely genocide narrative, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lists military losses, and for BOTH of the warring sides - is this being "offtopic"? And there were no German civilians to flee or die there, so they are not listed, but apparently in Van district there were hundreds of thousands of Muslims, right? --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising does not include military or civilian casualties that occured outside Warsaw, nor does it detail battles between Soviet and German forces that took place hundreds of miles away from Warsaw. Meowy 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to say not a single one Muslim non-combatant resident of the city was not killed or wounded, was not evacuated, did not flee otherwise, or was not murdered during of after the "Siege of Van" military conflict? And do you want to say neither side had any military losses, too? --Niemti (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We can only say what credible sources say. But it would be likely to be correct that no Muslim non-combatant residents of the city were killed. Van was divided into districts that were either almost entirely Christian or almost entirely Muslim (even areas that were mixed overall, such as the commercial districts, had their own separate Christian or Muslim zones. The genocidal killings were directed at the Christian populations, there was nobody targeting Muslim civilians or Muslim-populated districts, and any Muslims who died would have been combatants engaged in attacking or besieging the Christian districts and would have been either Ottoman army personel, irregular armed forces, or members of armed Kurdish groups. Things that happened outside of Van or its immediate hinterland were not part of the Siege of Van and so should not be included in the conflict infobox. A lot of cutting of off-topic stuff is needed on this article - maybe the various other "siege" articles on Wikipedia could be used as axamples of how to do it. Meowy 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Let me checkthis very article, okay?

• Armenian civilian forces fought in two disconnected sets of battles inside the city of Van. These were the "Old City" (Kale District) and in the "Garden City" (Aygestan). The conflict in Garden City consisted of skirmishes along the Armenian and Muslim quarters. Both sides had fortified buildings and trenches along the opposite side.

This sounds to me very much like something like Beirut in 1975-1990. And quite a lot of civilians died in Beirut on all sides from this.

And whatever is "civilian forces" that "fought in two disconnected sets of battles"? They could be have been EITHER civilians or combatants. A civilian is the one whois NOT "fighting battles", combatant fights. "Fighting civilians", what's that? In the infobox's "Casualties and losses", there are "55,000 civilians"- supposedly, including such pseudo-"civilian" comabatants? Also, what "55,000" - killed, wounded, missing? The article does not say, but at least there is ANY figure there (once again, any kind of Ottoman losses is 100% ignored, just a completely empty field for them).

• The gallery "The city of Van during the Resistance" has a picture labeled "The cannons captured by the Armenians". The article also mentions their "improvised mortars".

So they even had artillery to fire on the enemy districts. Surely civilians are not really "unlikely" to die from cannon fire directed on "Muslim quarters"?

• According to Ussher, on 19 April, Djevdet issued an order throughout the Van province, which read: "The Armenians must be exterminated. If any Muslim protects a Christian, first, his house shall be burnt; then the Christian killed before his eyes, then his [the Muslim's] family and then himself.

Um. So it was never actually carried out?

• On 14 May, a Friday evening, a group of ships sailed from Van. More ships followed the next day. Turks were evacuating their women and children.

What were they afraid of?

And what happened to the evacuatees (how many?), and those who stayed (how many)? And when they returned, what happened to their homes in the meantime?

And what happened to the mosques? The article mentions a church being burned by Ottomans, describing it as an atrocity, while a caption of one photo says "1917, The church became the military headquarters".

"Armenian civilian forces" is a phrase repeated 6 times in the article. And the infobox says "Armenian residents of Van", instead of properly identyfing them by Armenian revolutionary organizations (quoting the article: The Armenian leaders were Aram Manukian, who was the regional party leader of Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), Armenakis Yekarian from the ranks of Armenakans, Nikoghayos Poghos Mikaelian (Ishkhan) who was member of ARF) and their militias.

Or is it all "off-topic" too, somehow? --Niemti (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already said that I think this article is very badly written. I should have a go at editing it to fix the worst of its failings. However, your questions are starting to suggest to me an aim towards the denial of the truth rather than a neutral pair of eyes raising useful points. I'm not helping you building you a platform to shout unpleasant opinions from, so I will not respond to more questions from you. Meowy 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One mitigating reason for the article's current state is that it was written when the article was titled "Van Resistance". One particular editor felt that this broader title alowed him to add a lot of extra content. Now that the article is titled "Siege of Van" its content can become more focused. Meowy 18:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And what's "the truth"? I'm asking questions, mostly based on this very Wikipedia article (English one, and I'm sure it's quite different on the Turkish Wikipedia) and all I'm getting is you saying things like that "any Muslims who died would have been combatants engaged in attacking or besieging the Christian districts and would have been either Ottoman army personel, irregular armed forces, or members of armed Kurdish groups" - is that the truth? Because I don't think so. I think they really had this artillery (portrayed on the photo) that they were using to fire on Muslim quarters, I think this whole Turks were evacuating their women and children thing did happen and was really caused by something, or at very least a threat of something.

I asked you to provide "the truth" and figures, but you know what I've got? The denial, denial that any Muslim civilian losses could possibly happen (btw, refugees are also losses, and are also often very likely to die even from non-combat/atrocity causes - for example, the extremely high mortality rate among the Kurdish refugees during the exodus from Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991, if we talk about Kurds, and especially among [their] women and children, about 17% of the young children who even managed to reach the border witch Turkey died in 1991). --Niemti (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And let me tell you what Van-based Armenian revolutionary organizations were capable of - like this massacre, described by English Wikipedia as something glorious (even "morally", which is a quote) (I'm sure it would be described quite differently if it was a Kurdish slaughter of "all" Armenian men somewhere?). Books that I just checked (through Google) descibe it differently and in various ways, from "little damage to the Kurd encampment", to total extermination of the entire tribe everyone including women and children, but let's just use the English Wikipedia as we are here, that is an organized and successful act of gendercide directed against an entire (small) ethnic group. Now mind you that the ringleaders of this atrocity were also among the Armenian revolutionary commanders in Van 1915 (one of the raid's leaders was even killed in the 1915 fighting), described by this article here as "Armenian civilian forces" and apparently believed by you to be beyond the bounds of possibility to kill "any" civilians. --Niemti (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no "ongoing discussion", because the other person refuses to either discuss it or fix the article. But yes, nobody had joined it. --Niemti (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Van → Defense of Van (1915) – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV. See below Երևանցի ^talk 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• 1896 Defense of Van → Defense of Van (1896)

"Siege of Van" is not an appropriate title. It is not the most common name as claimed in the 2011 discussion. Google Books reveals only 284 results for "Siege of Van" as opposed to "Defense of Van", which shows almost twice as much results (549). Interestingly enough, the phrases "Defense" "Van" 1915 armenian show 2,500 results. For those who will be quick to call "Defense of Van" Armenian POV I suggest you look at all the authors who prefer calling it a "defense"/"self-defense":

• Steven L. Jacobs "On 20 April 1915, the Armenians of Van rose up in self-defense, an action depicted by the Turks as a revolutionary uprising." 2009
• Christopher J. Walker "Their five-week battle with the Turks was not a rebellion, but legitimate self-defence, a reaction to the terrorism of the government's representative, Djevdet, which he had directed against the entire Armenian community." 1990
• Merrill D. Peterson "The gallant Armenian defense of Van has already been touched upon." 2004
• Randall Hansen/Matthew J. Gibney "A few days later,Turkish soldiers attacked some Armenian villages around Van, massacring Armenians. In the town ofVan,the Armenians dug trenches around the Armenian quarter and began a desperate defense of their community." 2005

--Երևանցի ^talk 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - The article was renamed Siege from Resistance based off common name to begin with. --Steverci (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, the GBooks results are not really as you present them: the "Siege" search actually has 39 hits, while "Defense" has 34. So they're about equally in circulation.
  Second, "siege" is simply more logical and slightly less POV: to defend something, logically someone has to attack it first, right? So, the "siege" encodes both the attack and the defense side. I said, "slightly less POV" because, quote from a book, " What the Armenians would later call “the defense of Van”..." the term "defense" leans on an Armenian side (which is not necessarily a bad thing per WP:POVTITLE, but here we have viable alternatives). "Siege" is simply more neutral.
  Third, under the proposal, "defense" would require a disambiguation, while "siege", at least currently, comes as a more natural disambiguation (WP:NCDAB). No such user (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not forget that "defense" is spelled "defence" in British English. So, therefore, we have 34 "Defense of Van" and 32 "Defence of Van". That is a total of 66, almost as twice as "Siege of Van"

"Siege" is simply more neutral. How? It was a deliberate attempt to massacre the Armenian population. I've clearly given very authoritative sources above that call it an act of defense/self-defense. The Siege article defines it as: "a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault." There was no such thing happening in Van. The Ottoman government's intent was to massacre the Armenian civilian population.

Liberation of Paris leans on French side, so? That doesn't make it French POV, because it is accepted by the majoroty of sources as a "liberation", the same way the events in Van are considered a "defence" by Armenians. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Per commonname. Siege of Van doesn't accurately describe what happened in Van in April of 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• I had initially closed this as moved, but I think there are still more questions to be answered. Foremost, what will happen to "Siege of Van"? Will it continue to redirect to Defense of Van (1915)? Where does Siege of Van (1548) come into play? Will we still need a dab? --BDD (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest redirecting "Siege of Van" to Siege of Van (1548) and adding this note at the top of that article:

This article is about the 1548 Ottoman siege of Van. For 1915 events, sometimes known as Siege of Van, see Defense of Van (1915).

--Երևանցի ^talk 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, we'd want to move Siege of Van (1548) to Siege of Van. Foo (dab) shouldn't redirect to Foo. And maybe it will be best to keep the dab, then, if there are a total of three events that could be called "Siege of Van." I'll make the moves accordingly tomorrow if there are no objections. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

Taner Akcam stated that "the decisions of deportation and extermination were made before the Van resistance". --92slim (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to give us summary of the source. I would like to learn how Taner Akcam reached this conclusion. Is this his personal opinion or any fact behind it? We know the Red Sunday in April and some kind of Law in March. Does he provide any source/sources published by another researcher? Some historians claim he used wrong dates, wrong translations, and unrelated events to support his claims. --Balkai9 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not an historian or researcher. Perhaps check Akcam's book. As for the uprising/rebellion/siege, Gibbons said in 1926: "This uprising had not been intended or planned" (by the Armenians) - found here. According to De Waal in his book The Great Catastrophe: "Minister of Interior Talaat Pasha had issued the first orders of deportation in February 1915". Perhaps that clarifies this issue that Akcam doesn't have any "claims". --92slim (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anahit Ter Minassian (on p211 in the chapter titled "Van 1915" in the book "Armenian Van / Vaspurakan") describes it thus: "The Van uprising began on April 7/20 1915. On April 11/24 1915 the Ottoman authorities arrested and deported several hundred lay and clerical leaders and intellectuals. This was the onset of the massive deportations and massacres of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. Is it reasonable to believe that an operation of such great magnitude, involving the displacement of over one million people, could be improvised in 4 days because of an uprisising in a small Anatolian city?" The two dates given are firstly the Julian calendar, the second the Gregorian calendar. Her comment is a response to the claim found in "all the works of Turkish historians" who "deny the genocide" that the Ottoman decision to deport its Armenian population was due to the treasonable actions of those Armenians rather than a deliberate and planned act of genocide by the Ottoman empire. It's a rather casual response because no credible historians seriously suggest there is any truth within that Turkish propaganda and that there is plenty of evidence for that elsewhere, not just the Van events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It of course makes very little sense that the Armenian Revolt at Van would be a spontaneous event, "forced on Armenians by circumstance". When Russia entered the war much earlier, it was clear to many Armenians that Russia would win this one again as they had done so against Ottomans many times before and with each defeat, new Russian client states were born on lands massively ethnic cleansed of its Muslim inhabitants. It is impossible for Armenian Revolutionaries not to be thinking along these lines or be cognizant of these realities. Now, Mr. Akcam knows all this very well, so that is why some have been always skeptical of his agenda. As early as 1908, Consul Elliot who met Armenian notables in Van noted that "even among the educated they have the idea that in their struggle with the Turks, they are entitled to rights analogous to those of a belligerent power. They told us that Fedayin, who are the Armenian Army, are engaged in war with Ottoman Army..." What part of Rebellion at Van could be a spontaneous rising? The massive amount of weapons and even artillery stockpiled leaves no doubt that this was a result of a long planning effort. Are we to believe that the Rebellion taking place at the height of the Allied landings in Canakkale is pure coincidence too? I propose to amend the language in accordance with known historic facts.

In response to the quote of Anahit Ter Minassian, she was arguing if it's possible for the Ottoman Empire to prepare the exile of Armenians in four days, not the Van uprising. The Van uprising is indeed unrelated to the plans of the Genocide; it was a plan to undermine the efforts of the ARF (who were already armed, as paramilitary organization usually are), organised by the governor of Van. Don't twist the words, Tiptoe. --92slim (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I give an exact quote from a source, 92slim gives a sourceless and probably OR opinion and calls the exact quote a "twisting of words"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you twist words. Didn't you know? 92slim (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times article

The NY Times article is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that talks about "rumours" of revolt. However, no such revolt occurred in November 1914. This is simply not true, and even denialist sources make no mention of it. We need to have some sort of secondary source to verify whether this "rumour" from a prime source is true. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, non-events are not events, non-things are not things, if otherwise we would have on the Moon article newspaper reports of WW2 aircraft on its surface. There are no sources that show this single newspaper "report" was based on anything that was real. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So, you are saying that this article is biased against the Armenians? Is that what you get away from reading this piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What I get from reading that piece is that American journalism in 1914 was no better than American journalism in 2003, or in 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think any further source needed to include the nyt coverage. Saying "it did not happen" without any source denying it, is just a POV. You guys also want remove this [5] from the Armenian Genocide article? Abbatai 11:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. There's hundreds, if not thousands of sources that confirm what is mentioned in that NY Times article. In fact, there's dozens upon dozens of secondary academic sources that use that particular NY Times article as a primary reference to the Armenian Genocide at large ([6]). On the other hand, there's nothing on a November 1914 revolt that would confirm the "rumour" in this NY Times article of yours. Until then, it shall be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Here [7] [8] just two sources mention 1914 revolt. BTW I believe article is heavily biased from name to not exclusion of 1914 revolt. Abbatai 12:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)