Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Untitled

The main page for Dayr az-Zawr has been changed to Deir ez-Zor. If someone with editing access to this page could change the link in the "deportation" section that'd be great. Thanks. --Optimussven 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notification. Aecis^Bravado 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lie of Omission (Dhimmi)

"However, unlike Muslim citizens, Armenians, Greeks, other Christians, Jews, and other minorities were subject to laws which gave them fewer legal rights and they were subject to numerous limitations in legal rights in the empire."

This ignores dhimmi status which included poll taxes and a prohibition against giving testimony in court (both of which the article implies are exclusive onuses on Armenians).

~~ Abra

Citations

I'd really like to add some citations to this article. (I purchased a subscription to the NYT archives without realizing that I was prohibited from editing the article.) Any chance I could add some citation and a little clarification, all of it wholly sourced to NYT? It's terribly unfortunate that the citations seem to rely more on Peter Balakian than the New York Times; the Times' documentation is readily available online for a modest fee, even back beyond the Bitlis massacre of 1894.

It's quite tragic to see this "controversial" issue so poorly sourced! As long as the page relies more on Armenian-authored texts than formal documentation of the outside objective world, it truly serves to grant Turkish revisionism that benefit of a doubt for which it is so desperate.DBaba 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DBada, thanks for your feedback, I also thank you for your contribution to the Adana massacre article. This article is in a very bad shape, but I don't think sourcing is the main problem. It is OK to quote Armenian scholars, more particularly when they use other sources, when the writter is in the west and that the work is criticised in peer reviewed publications. Anyway, I don't think relying mainly on newspaper articles is the right thing to do. Because newspapers mostly report an event in the instant it happens, while historic works uses sources to connect and present the overal picture of the event, something which we need here. Regards. Fad (ix) 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good point on the newspapers, as I've learned in struggling to assemble a timeline for the Adana massacre from contemporary New York Times reports.

I'm sorry to upset you Serouj, I didn't mean to sound provocative, only to note that the full force of historical documentation is conspicuously absent in this entry. I tend to suspect that it's not Dink, Pamuk, or your passion that best evidences the events of the past, but rather the incredibly vast body of documentation readily available to us all.DBaba 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbaba, I completely misinterpreted your comment and have retracted my statement. Sorry about that, and I agree that we do have a vast sea of documentation in support of the Armenian Genocide, and we need to include more first hand sources. We need a mechanism to add this information. Serouj 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Serouj, I was going to make the same critization about citations, then I saw these posts and your name in it, and hesisated to do so, since I was afraid to be misunderstood. Not to recall you bad memories, but I guess you had some losses that suffered in 1915, and therefore you're being very sensitive about the subject.

After Dink's assassination, I was discussing with a Turkish guy on the slogan saying "We are all Armenians". The guy said that he'd never ever say such thing, since it was him himself who were listening stories from his great-grandfather about every women in his town being raped by Armenians, regardless of age. I tried to explain the guy about how Armenians suffered, but apart from not being very willing to listen, the guy accused me of being a traitor. (He even called me Kirkor :), which you know is an Armenian name, and sounds a bit like my name). So please you do not act like he did, and try to keep your cool when discussing. there I begin :) (It's also interesting that taking a look at your user page, I have to tell you that we have a lot in common)

I personally am not in favor of having citations from www.armenica.org (Armenian POV) as well as www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr (Turkish POV). For example this concentration camp map. It shows it as Armenians are gathered in government established arbeit camps to be sent to "Deir ez-Zor", the main extermination center. Well, of course none of us today are to know the absolute truth about it, but even the most genocide supportive western academics (or the pro-genocide Turkish academics such as Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay) state that it was officially an order of deportation which secretly supported the perishing of Armenians en-route or not protecting them against the gangs attacked them.(or sometimes even encouriging the gangs to attack the Armenians) I know you're sensitive on this issue but I read quite a lot about this event past couple of months (since september I believe), and still reading on it, but it is nowhere else that I've seen any other sources that are mentioning about such arbeitcamps or extermination centers (This is why some of those academics call 1915 a massacre rather than genocide)

And if you are really willing to improve the article, but not to use it as AG propaganda, I believe that statements beging with "it is believed", "it is said" or such should be removed from the article.

One more time to mention, I respect the pain of everybody that has such a loss, including yours and the loss of my own people (regardless of numbers of casulties, condemning the people who gave statistical importance to the peoples pains) Regards, Ombudsee 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We’ve been there already. If you check the footnotes, the work relating to the concentration camps is a French work on the concentration camps of the last century(but other works are also cited). Most work published relating to them are French or German, French because the Arabic deserts were on French mission, German because they were Ottoman ally. The term concentration camp was used back then. This is what the German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report wrote about them: "The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). You relate to Akçam and Berktay, I don’t know if we have been reading the same stuff, but I propose you to read the most recent work written by Akçam, it basically say about the same thing, but concentrate more on the special organization, its structure and the way it accomplished what they were said to accomplish. So, I don’t see what AG propaganda you are talking about. I will also mind you, that Zurcher himself wrote a paper published in a work, which also included a paper on the concentration camps.

You tell Serouj that he is probably sensible about the topic because he lost a relative in 1915. Like I have been saying in the past, you will hardly find anyone in the Diaspora who hasn’t lost a relative, when I say this, I am not talking about: “My relative heard that all the people were raped etc.” But rather, that:”My relative was the only surviving, brothers and sisters lost, ending in a Syrian orphanage etc.”

So you don’t expect any Armenian to believe that guys story do you? How many Armenian properties were distributed among the local population or placed to sell for the fraction of the price? You don’t expect me or any Armenians to believe those who have ended up in those houses. Or, you don’t expect any such person saying: “The Armenians there were butchered, thrown out, and I am living in one of the property of one of those Armenians.” I have heard my share of history of those saying how Armenians have raped, and killed…, most of the time, a relative saying to his grandchild: “I have heard in my village Armenians have burned Muslims.” How often do you hear: “I was the only surviving,” or “My parents were killed, my sisters taken away.” Even in Turkey there were orphanages for those Armenians, Hilmar Kaiser had made his doctoral research on the forced assimilation or simply the destruction of the orphans. Fad (ix) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I was misunderstood. To clarify it, I have never ever underestimated how Armenians suffered. And the guy whom I argued with was not saying that he heard such a rumour. He said it was his grandfather who experienced it. You can check the previous discussions I've been into to see where I stand. See, I could have copy-pasted here stories of the Turkish population that suffered too. They are just a google-search away. Of course it's not that I'm claiming that they are all-true, but the way you're looking at the subject is as Turks are all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians were turning-other-cheek victims.

As I stated before, the truth is somewhere in-between the scale. I know it's nowhere near the official Turkish thesis at all, but also I don't believe it's overlapping what armenica.org-type-of-sites shows it like.

About the Concentration camps; candidly it might be possible that I missed about them for all my last months of reading. But sincerely I didn't see or read anything about my understanding of concentration camps (Like the arbeitcamps of Nazi) And when it comes to Akçam; yes, we're reading the same stuff; no, he doesn't mention about the concentration camps. He says that Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa (that special organization you're talking about - Basically the Turkish CIA of the day) undertook the crimes of massacres en-route or provoked the Kurdish tribes to do so. And when it comes to the that German consel footnote, since armenica.org-type-of-sites are the only places to find these type of sources, I think the reliability is still disputed regardless who wrote it. For example in "Sarı Gelin" documentary (which is extremely Turkish POV by the way) it shows documents by a Russian comrade on how Armenians were not obeying the Russian orders in Kars by torturing the muslim population, a declaration printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times in 1985 by 70 American and Canadian academics on why the events were not Genocide or an Italian academics findings about mass Turkish graves in Bitlis. These documents can either be reliable or not - I'm not advocating those here and it's not the issue. But what I'm saying is just because somebody from Europe or US wrote that, it doesn't necesseraly make it a proof.

So back in the subject, can you provide some better and npov sources about those camps and their purposes for existance? If it's my ignorance then we can just add those to the article. See internet is the only source I can get to now, and I tried to look for them, but the only places I found the words "Armenian genocide" and "concentration camps" together are either the Armenian POV sites or open-contribution wiki-type structures, and even in those it doesn't go into any details about what was the purpose for these camps existance or how they were like. (Even in one of them it was briefly written that they were administered by Armenian officers)I need to do more research on it, but if you ask my opinion, they were the bogus gathering points created by the government to back-up the official deportation thesis, where Armenians perished because of terrible life conditions and Turkish official didn't care about it. Still as far as I see, it was nothing like forced labour or crematoriums of the Nazi Arbeitcamps (As you see I'm not defending anything, but I am against the distortion of the facts. If you can prove me wrong, please do so)

This applies for other stuff too that is written relying on the armenian-pov sites, and statements with beginnings "It is believed" and such.

Please believe in my good faith by the way. I am just trying to help this article to get better and be more balanced. Otherwise you know what's the difference it would make to me if there were no concentration camps map on the article. simply none. Actually in a way you can say that I'm even doing it due to my respect of Armenian victims in 1915. I believe that distorting the facts is being disrespectful to the death (which might be the case here or not). For example the other day I read a source that says Armenian casulties in 1915 were over 2 million. See, I hate to talk with numbers, since it doesn't matter if it was half a million Armenian perished or over 2 million (by which I mean it was a calamity anyways), but if people are pumping up the number of victims while even the official Armenian thesis is saying that it was around 1.5 million, there I sense a huge indignity.

As I always say, the truth is somewhere in between our official thesis (But definately closer to the Armenian side) Regards, Ombudsee 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee - I do not question either your scincerity or your empathy with Armenian losses - however why is it that most all Turks - even yourself as example here - even when presented with direct citations from - in this instance - a German source - still attempt to claim that the information has Armenian bias...I just don't understand. Likewise, why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence do most Turks, such as yourself in this instance - still try to cling to this "Armenian viewpoint" or "Truth is in the middle" fiction when in fact it is the vast overwhelming majority of scholarship and the vast perponderance of corraborated eyewitness and documentary evidence that clearly supports the facts as you see them on most all serious Armenian websites and in articles such as this one. (I'm not discounting that there are websites and/or posters on Armenian webforums that present information and base opinions on less factual basis) but bottom line the history as presented in this article represents the historical facts. Isn't it about time that reasonably educated and aware Turks such as yourself stop questioning the fundemental truth of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the evidence is more then sufficient to prove CUP/Ottoman Turkish genocidal intent - and that CUP cover stories and rational are what is fictional and unsupported by fact - and instead join with Armenians and non Armenian Western scholars in examining the historical record to better understand what occured - and not to attempt to dig up more strawman arguments which at best are tangental and evasive and do not address the most relevant and significant aspects of these events and of the motivations of those involved in perpetrating and carrying out the Genocide? Haven't Armenians and Turks spent far too much time arguing about something that is in fact already pretty much known and understood (by all but those who deny due to political/ethnic predetermination) - and couldn't this time and effort be better spent in learning and understanding the relevant facts, context and perspectives of those involved? IMO this article, and this issue in general, would be much more well served by honest effort towards discovery of the truth and not essentially dishonest denial of the obvious.--THOTH 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee, I don’t think you have been misunderstood. The Armenian concentration camps were not in buildings, they were just places in desertic zones where Armenians were sent. (The 25 camps, relate to those places) And for the German consul, I brought that quote on the web, and you can use an interloan system to confirm it, I can tell you how to do it if you want. While the translation is not mine, it conforms with what Systran gave me. Many of the stuff used in some sites are actually things they have fished from my writings.

Regarding the Russians stuff, this too was covered here in the past. The one single most cited report from a Russian official, the official was an Azeri Tartar who was accused of cannonading Yerevan, the equivalents have never been found in Russian records. There was some pamphlet published prepared by the Turkish delegation, in French, and then published in English, which was containing the said Russian reports, the major translator of those stuff is an intelligence official of the Ottoman, who has already been found to distort Russian materials. The identification isn’t a Russian identification, but a collection now found in the Ottoman archive.

And no, I am not saying that Turks were all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians are angels. In the same situation Armenians would have probably done the same. What I am saying is that Armenians were in no position to have done all what is reported they have done. And if you pay attention to the relevant materials, Armenians at that time, not only were not hiding their own crimes, but were proudly citing them and even exaggerating them, to show how small they were against the ‘’enemy’’ and were still able to have an upper hand. This is why they took the defence of Musa Dagh as main example. Anyway, if you want to discuss we can continue in your talkpage. Fad (ix) 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what, actually I am going to take a break from the virtual world for a while. I was spending way too much time here for the last week and plus there's so much going in my life now. Anyways, my point is (and was) that some parts in the article as I stated before seems a little... uhm... swaying? so maybe more work on them can be done (better citations, more detailed info or so...) It just happened that we were talking about that concentration camps in this case, but giving an example from the same section once more, more detailed information such as why those camps were there what was done there should also be added to article if they are going to be mentioned. I don't want to repeat the same stuff once more but as I said, in the present article it just blurrilly says that there were some concentration camps and the way it's shown in the map is like they were the main extermination centers. I don't say they weren't, maybe they were and I missed it for all of my past readings, but if that was the case please back it up with better and more solid citations. I'm trying to make constructive criticism, so you might even take it as I'm doing you a favor by showing that specific part of the article is not very-well propped up.

And THOTH, I really don't think I don't think I am questioning the fundemantel truth of the Armenian Genocide, do you? I think right now I'm pretty much in the encyclopedic details :) And since we are in a wikipedia, that's the place for that. Though I have to say I am sorry for the misconception of "truth is somewhere in the middle". It sounds like it's about equal distance from both of the official thesis. I meant to say the truth is somewhere in between them, definately way closer to Armenian thesis. Plus it sounds a little bit rebarbative (I got that word from the dictionary. don't know if it's the exact turkish equivalent. Just to clarify, it's not an offensive one :) ) to call me "a reasonably educated and aware Turk" just because I share similar beliefs to you rather than most Turkish.

About that Russian document stuff; see, that's exactly what I have been saying! -It doesn't mean that a foreign guy saying it makes it true- Well let's just assume that the German consel in the previous case was an anti-muslim German who wanted to prepare propaganda stuff against Turks using Armenians, like that Azeri-Tartar-Russian. It's not that I believe that it is so, but if you cite several different sources from severeal different background-people that will make the article more stable, and turn the claim-like structure of the existing one to the factual. Try to show the same doubts against the Armenian-thesis-supportive documents, as you do to the Turkish-thesis-supportive ones. I am trying so hard to chose my words while writing those. I hope once more that you will believe in my good faith (Hope I have not been speechifying you with all that sincerity thing :) )

Fad(ix), as you just said, and somebody else also mentioned it long before, I think that Armenian Genocide now became more of a political issue rather than an ethical one. I don't believe that even the ones in the government look at the issue like the official thesis does, but feel obligated to seem like it for various political reasons. (That's one of the reasons why politics disgust me)

Anyway, so to sum it up; I still think the article needs better citing. And farewell for a while. Happy editing :) Ombudsee 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Ombudsee - its not an "Armenian Thesis" - its what occured. Obviously more Armenians have researched, documented and presented these facts then others but this should be no surprise. I've met highly educated and aware Turks with which I have had some fundemental disagreements...but it would be rather difficult for me to lable any Turk "aware" or "educated" who outright denies the Armenian Genocide or attempts to claim it was something other then what it was - certainly not educated or aware when it comes to this issue. The evidence confirming the known facts of the Armenian Genocide are more then sufficiently corroborated for us (or anyone who bothers to honestly investigate a bit) to accept both the patterns and specific events and circumstances - including regarding this issue of concentration camps - whose existance is well known and documented in the literature. On a parting note (if indeed you are partin and actually I would hope that you are not) I would highly suggest that you read Akcam's latest book - A Shameful Act...and take the time to check his citations. I believe that you will find the read very enlightening. I suspect that you will apologize for the use of the term "truth is somewhere in the middle" as this is quite offensive - as it would be to say to a Jew in regards to the veracity of Holocaust denial arguments compared to the widely known and understood truth regarding the Holocaust. Akcam's book - as well as others - discuss and present in proper context and with due weight the various Armenian movements and actions of certain Armenians (political and violent) and such that are often used by Turks as a counter to Genocide "allegations" and these circumstances and events are not unkown to us nor do we or would we fail to acknowledge such things (good bad and ugly etc) in their proper context. Still it is impossible to legitimatly claim that Armenians "stabbed Turks in the back" or that the "deporation" was just that and that it was really justifyable in any way or that any of these positions and or actions held/commited by certain Armenians in any way can justify (or even necissarily can be said to have caused/directly spurred on) the brutal, utterly indefensible and unprecidented actions (deliberatly) taken by the CUP/Ottoman Turks against the Armenians who overwhelmingly were peaceful and loyal and innocent Ottoman citizens. And the results of the CUP/Ottoman Turkish actions are obvious and there can be no questioning their categorization as (deliberate and pre-planned) genocide. I urge you to read this book and other scholarly works on this issue and welcome your contributions to this article and to the further discussion of this issue/subject.--THOTH 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Split

This page is 148 kilobytes long. I suggest we split this article into smaller, more specific articles including the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide article. That section is too detailed, the only way to keep these details in Wikipedia is to split this section. As time goes on, some details are removed by some user, so we want a seperate page in order to keep the material in WP. Kavas (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So-called Armenian Genocide

In response to recent edits to add the qualifier "so-called" in the turkish name of the events it's not even called "The so-called Armenian genocide" in the turkish wikipedia. It's called "Armenian Genocide" even there. A bit strange to try to change it in the English one.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"So-called Armenian Genocide" is used in Turkey for refering to what happened in 1915. The English Wikipedia article says "In 2007, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan issued a circular that calls the government institutions to use "1915 Events" (in Turkish, 1915 Olayları) phrase instead of the "so-called Armenian genocide" (in Turkish, sözde Ermeni soykırımı) phrase." So, the official Turkish name was "The so-called Armenian genocide". But, the direct translation of the term "Armenian Genocide" is obviously "Ermeni Jenosidi" or "Ermeni Soykırımı". Kavas (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources just call it the "Armenian Genocide". I think their reasoning is that it was a genocide that was perpetrated against Armenians. But whatever their reasoning, there is a clear academic consensus that it's called the Armenian Genocide, so we won't add "so-called" in front of it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion is not on this topic. It is about the Turkish translation of "Armenian Genocide". Kavas (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So there is no translation of the phrase "Armenian Genocide" into Turkish that doesn't have "so-called" tacked onto it? Or just that a lot of people in Turkey add "so-called" onto it when they talk about it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why does Turkish wikipedia have this[1] article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not weird to call it "so-called Armenian Genocide", as it was used in Vikipedi http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ermeni_K%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1&oldid=463309. Regardless of the debate in Turkey on using the genocide label to describe the events, the direct translation is of course "Ermeni Soykırımı". See one recent news in Turkish Media that use the phrase "Ermeni Soykırımı": http://www.t24.com.tr/haberdetay/94019.aspx Kavas (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe most people know Turkey's stance on this issue. The only thing needed is a direct translation, not the inclusion of any government's opinion in the translation, since that would violate neutrality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The event in question is referred to as in Turkey Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı. That is why Republic of France is listed under "France" or Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is listed under "Vladimir Putin", because that is how they are commonly known in the English speaking world. I do not think it is up to WP to decide how it should be worded in Turkey when it is overwhelmingly being worded "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı". --Hnbkd (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:Article Titles WP:NDE:SC Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism

Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. For example, the term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law that have not yet been proven in a court of law.

--Anothroskon (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You can apply that rule to the current article title which is judgemental and one-sided. If the consensus sides with the current form of the title, it shall remain, otherwise it shall change. However, The current debate is not the article title but how the event in question is referred to as in the Turkish speaking world. What anyone thinks or feels how they should refer to as is a personal opinion and highly irrelevant. --Hnbkd (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The turkish phrase in question is supposed to ba a trnslation of the article title which as I have shown is not allowed to contain words such as "alleged" etc.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sözde of "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı" means in word only (New Red House Turkish English Dictionary, 12th edition, p. 1031). And in Turkey deniers use this term. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be a translation but how the event is known as in Turkish or any language for that matter, interpretation of a WP rule is one thing fabricating a rule to enforce an opinion is another. Besides, alleged is a controversial term due to it being a term of law whereas "so-called" is not, hence it does not contradict with the WP rule in any case. I guess this fact is obvious so perhaps you may want to let it go as it's turning into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tubezone/Dead_Parrot_Analogy --Hnbkd (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no material difference between the phrasing "in word only" and "alleged" as far as the purposes of title naming conventions are concerned. And the rule cited is not a fabrication, you can see it for yourself in the page provided.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Alleged is an accusation (accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged burglar>) that's why it should be used within the law context whereas "so-called" is not, hence there is a fundamental difference between those words. "So-call" or "self-proclaim" are not obliged to 3rd party approval, "alleged" is, unless it is backed up by a process of a court of law. That's why you can't fabricate a rule based on an existing rule to also cover the words that are not desirable to you. It is not WP's position to dictate how particular communities refer to events as, it only lists how they commonly do, that's why it is an encyclopedia to inform, not a news site to shape or change the current public opinion, as attempted here. --Hnbkd (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Turkish Language Association, Gerçekte öyle olmayıp öyle geçinen veya bilinen (no such thing as reality only disseminated or known). Takabeg (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Point being? You can have your opinion about why and how Turks name the event, but this is not a linguistic case. Turks call it Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı hence the wording has been changed. --Hnbkd (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

<de-indenting> Could we please have a link to the WP rulebook where it says that the name of the article's title translated in the lead in a foreign language should be the "most common phrase for that event in that language irrespective of whether it means the same thing as the article title, as opposed to a direct translation of that name in said language". That would help resolve this I think.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

Non-neutral but common names

When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

You may find it non-neutral, but the policy is clear.

Hence I corrected the wording, please avoid any further interference. --Tmhm (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This refers to the article title in English and is a very good argument for keeping this article titled as "Armenian Genocide". It says nothing about how it should be used in a foreign language.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It does, English used as a -language- there, so if Armenian genocide is more commonly used in English speaking world, it remains as the English title, as "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı" is used in Turkish speaking world, translation remains such. This case is settled. Thank you. --Tmhm (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were "used as a -language-" it would explicitly state "in English or other languages used in the lead". I still don't think this is the correct rule to use since it refers to article titles exclusively and not to their translation in a foreign language. In fact could any of the long-standing editors here provide a rationale for using the turkish language translation in the lead? I ask since I note that the article on the Holocaust does not include the name of the events in German in the lead.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me give another example, look at Turkish invasion of Cyprus "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Greek: Τουρκική εισβολή στην Κύπρο, known in Turkey as Kıbrıs Barış Harekâtı (Cyprus Peace Operation), Kıbrıs Harekâtı (Cyprus Operation) or by its Turkish Armed Forces code name Atilla Harekâtı (Operation Atilla)," this is a direct example of how phrases are used in other languages, and as seen it is very different from the title. The title is determined by the most commonly used phrase in the English speaking world but as far as other languages are concerned, how the event is known in that particular community is used, not a direct translation. As seen from an unbiased point of view, WP allowed two very contradicting terms (invasion vs peace) due to commonality rule. It is also possible to add the "commonly known in Turkey" instead of "Turkish:" in this article as to indicate a differing POV in Turkey, but "Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı" is simply inaccurate because that is not how it is used in Turkish and it subliminally enforces the idea that it is recognized in Turkey as it is put forward in the article. --Tmhm (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Writing "so-called Armenian genocide" also implies the idea that no Turk or Turkish-speaker recognizes the Armenian genocide although we know that this is not the case. For instance, the Republic of Turkey has no authority over how Turkish speakers outside of Turkey (including descendants of genocide survivors) can call the event. Replacing "Turkish" by "commonly known in Turkey" does not make a big difference.

Calling the Turkish actions of Cyprus "Cyprus Peace Operation" is not a big deal because it does not imply a denial of the events of Cyprus, but adding "so-called" in front of "Armenian genocide" is wrong because it implies denial. It would basically be like saying that the Holocaust is also known as Holohoax. --Davo88 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If that was the case, writing "Mec Egem" would imply there is no Armenian or Armenian speaker does not believe the genocide tale. For instance Republic of Armenia has no authority over how Armenian speakers outside of Armenia (including everyone who knows what really happened) can call the event. "Calling the Turkish actions of Cyprus "Cyprus Peace Operation" is not a big deal because it does not imply a denial of the events of Cyprus" Contrary to this statement the wording and titling of articles aren't decided according on an acceptance/denial basis, there is no such rule that any idea that takes place in the article should enforce the Armenian point of view. That could be a valid argument for an Armenian national encyclopedia but this is WP. Hence according to the commonality rule, the wording has been changed to "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı". Tmhm (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I will change the wording if there is no more irrational opposition. Tmhm (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see do not see any editors that agree with your opinion. Therefore, any changes will be against consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MOAI12, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} ...Treaty of Sèvres and it's relativity...

Remove the apostrophe. "It's" means "it is"; possessive is "its". MOAI12 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In Turkish language

Common use in Turkish is not Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı but Ermeni Soykırımı.

• Ermeni Soykırımı - sözde = 785 hits
• Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı = 362 hits

Takabeg (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Turkish Vikipedia. Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı doesn't match WP:NPOV. It's very clear. We can use this term as citation. Common use is Ermeni Soykırımı. But in Turkey and the community of Turkish Vikipedia many people cannot accept the massacres in 1915 as genocide (soykırım). But in Turkish Vikipedia, it's impossible that we could prefer Söze Ermeni Soykırımı (nominal Armenian Genocide), not Ermeni Soykırımı iddiası (allegation on Armenian Genocide), because of WP:NPOV. As far as i am concerned, Ermeni Kırımı was chosen for Compromise. Ermeni Kırımı is old usage but not common use. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Turkish WP. I guess you do not know how Google search works or you purposefully distort the fact. Any query "X Y" + Z produces more results than "X Y Z" . "Michael Joseph Jackson 580,000 results "michael jackson" joseph 10,600,000 results - see? Besides, the majority of book results are translations of foreign books written by Armenians "Hitler ve Ermeni soykirimi" Kevork B. Bardakjian Türk kaynaklarında Ermeni soykırımı by Vahakn N. Dadrian Ermeni soykirimi: Ermenikirim. Nedenler, eylem, sonuçlar by Nikolay Hovhannisyan Ermeni soykirimi ve toplumsal hafiza Վերժինե Գառնիկի Սվազլյան those bolds signify something who are familiar with this subject, so these are not cases of Turkish usage.

"Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı" About 855,000 results - you can't expect a random non-used phrase produce 855,00 results, can you? I guess this case is settled already. --Hnbkd (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We prefer to google books rather than normal google search. Firstly because of Google bomb. Seconderly most of them (normal google search) aren't identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to make such a distortion of the Turkish translation of the words "Armenian genocide"... Wikipedia does not represent the Republic of Turkey or its current point-of-view.--Davo88 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not represent Republic of Armenia of Armenian diaspora either, hence I am correcting the mistake you guys have previously done, Armenian editor. --Tmhm (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning concerning your racial comments towards other editors. Continued violations of civility will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning concerning your behaviour as to pretend a Vbulletin forum moderator. Continued violations of know-your-place will be reported. Tmhm (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people and the Turkish government always say the so-called genocide because there was not a genocide. turkish government requested a commitee to be formed by both the Turkish and the Armenian historist but Armenian government never accepted this offer. The so called Armenian Genocide is made up in orde to split up Turkey. There are historical datas which show that more Turkish people died than the Armenians in the years of the problems. Turkish people were killed by the Armenians and thats why the Armenians were asked to leave Turkey but Armenians were never intentionally killed. But the Turkish people were killed intentionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.35.177 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkish reactions

In which section can we use them ? Takabeg (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Celal Bey, the former governor of Halep Province, a deputy of Konya explained him the situation and said to him Blood flowing instead of water in the river, and thousands of innocent children, blameless elderly, helpless women and strong youths were flowing towards death in this blood flow.

Halil Paşa (Kut), uncle of Enver Paşa wrote Armenian nations whom I tried to annihilate to the last member of them, because of trying erase us from history as prisoners of enemy in the most horrible and painful days of my homeland... in his memory.

In 1919, Ahmet Refik wrote Unionists (Committee of Union and Progress) wanted to remove the problem of Vilâyât-ı Sitte with annihilating Armenians. in his work entitled İki Komite İki Kıtal.

At a secret session of the National Assembly, held in October 17, 1920, Hasan Fehmi Bey (Kolay), deputy of Bursa at the time, said:

As you know, the issue of relocation was an event that made world to yell blue and made all of us to be considered as murderer. We knew, before we done it, the Christian world's won't tolerate it and they would direct anger and hatred toward us. Why did we impute the title of murderer to our race ? Why did we enter into much decisive and difficult struggle ? That was done just for securing the future of our country that we know as more precious and sacred than our lives.

- Another proof of real genocide done by Armenians.. http://webtv.hurriyet.com.tr/2/10590/16081667/1/ardahan-da-bulundu.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkanik (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacres - Suffocation

Pretty sure that should say "Death by Drowning" or just "Drowning" rather than suffocation, but I don't want to make waves by doing a drive-by edit on a carefully watched page. Someone with some cred step in and fix that! The Masked Booby (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A Disputed Genocide

In his extensive fact based research professor Guenter Lewy at the University of Massachusetts has published “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide”. The book is written strictly from a historical perspective and puts forward a great deal evidence dismissing Armenian allegations of genocide. Lewy also discredits so called testimonies of survivors, which according to the book were the result of pressure and perceptions. Hittit (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article about genocide denial... // Liftarn (talk)

We have a more specific article at Armenian Genocide denial where there should probably be information on Lewy's work, although since it is already mentioned in the article about him it should only be a summary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The notion of genocide is disputed and that is simple as that. Latest news, a new mass grave was uncoverred in a villge close to Van in Eastern Turkey containing the remains of 500 Turkish women, children and men victims of the Armenian insurgency from 1915. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/van-da-toplu-mezar-/turkiye/sondakika/19.10.2010/1303648/default.htm Hittit (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will reveal the obscenity within the above posting. The post links to a Turkish article that claims Turks have excavated a mass grave of Turks murdered by Armenians. The alleged grave site is located in a village called Yakınçay in the Gevaş district of Van province. Look at a list containing the names of every village in Gevaş district and you won't find the name "Yakinçay" anywhere - it does not exist. However, there is a "Yanikçay". Why would the Turkish extremists responsible for the claim change the village's name from Yanikçay to Yakinçay? Perhaps because "Yanik" is a word Kurds use for "church" or "monastery", derived from the Armenian word "vank". The village's name literally means "the village on church river". And what church gave its name to this river? None other than one of the most important Armenian monasteries in the Van region: the celebrated monastery of Narekavank which was completely destroyed after the Armenian Genocide. The modern Kurdish village of Yemişlik is built on the site of the monastery and Yanikçay is just three villages away up the same valley. In 1915 this valley was populated almost entirely by Armenians and Yanikçay was formerly the Armenian village of Arpat. So the bones of the "500 people" that this excavation has uncovered are the remains of the village's Armenian inhabitants that were massacred in 1915. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The uncovering of mass graves of murdered Turks and Muslims by the Armenian extremists in Turkey continues. In every dig more and more evidence is uncovered of the brutal torture and mass murder committed by the Armenian bands. Mass graves in: Kars, Giresun, Igdir, Ardahan, Bitlis….click on link to see article and pictures. http://www.anadolununsesigazetesi.com/haberdetay.asp?ID=3655 Hittit (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

All of which are actually the remains of Armenians murdered by Turks or Kurds. A true obscenity indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.175.144.11, 4 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section titled "Recognition of the Genocide" someone has mistakenly written "Armenia (already the second largest per capita after Israel)"referring to U.S. foreign aid. Egypt actually has the second largest per capita U.S. aid after Israel. Armenia actually receives no U.S. foreign aid according to the Congressional Report on Foreign Aid. Please remove the section in parenthesis. 71.175.144.11 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to verify this? Feel free to restore the edit semi-protected tag when you have this source. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 331° 19' 0" NET 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I could point out that extraordinary claims require sources. The extraordinary claim here is the Armenia "second largest per capita after Israel" one, not the "Egypt actually has the second largest per capita U.S. aid" one, However, a more pertinant question is why do you think such obviously off-topic content should remain in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Derivation of "genocide"

The article states that the term "genocide" was coined in response to the Armenian Genocide. This is untrue, the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943 in response to events occurring within the Third Reich. The term was first put in print by Lemkin in a 1944 article, and then entered into the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1948. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.27.59 (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

According to "The Great Game of Genocide", by Donald Bloxham, p210;"Nevertheless the author of the term and inspiration behind the convention, the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was clear that his thinking had a much wider relevance and had been particularly influenced by the Armenian case.".

What evidence do you have that says differently? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

False. Even a casual perusal of Lemkin's own writings on the origin and inspirations behind his coining of the word "genocide" reveals he considered the Armenian Genocide to be his most important influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us have a look at the sources for the phrase "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events":

• Source 17: And he invented a word for the crime the Nazis were committing. Genocide.
• Source 18: because it happened so many times

From my point of view, the sources do not justify the phrase. As for the citation from Donald Bloxham, it demonstrates that Lemkin was well informed about the Armenian genocide (as well as about the Holocaust - remember the book title - and many other historical examples). Thus it could be appropriate to write: "The word genocide was coined to describe, among others, also these events." Please correct my Pidgin English if necessary. --Max Shakhray (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

confused by the Table: Armenian population, deaths, survivors

I don't know if anyone took a close look at those documents but they have no claim as if to how many Armenian were killed. Not only that even though you will see that the number of Armenian citizens decreased in some cities (see adana) you will see that the numbers increased in others (see Kastamonou). Not only that you will see that the muslim population decreased in almost every city. Finally, the document from US_State_Department_Document_on Armenian Refugees does not comment on the number of deaths. It states that app.96,000 Armenians were forced to change religion but absolutely no comment is made on how many Armenians died. My point is this table doesn't support the claims made in this article, and is irrelevant to the rest of the article, and the title of the table it is presented under. DenizCc (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC) :You might have a point here. The text in that section basically concedes that the relevance is questionable. It may be a form of OR to have it here. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, my point is also that the table doesn't support the text. I'm a new user, so I don't really know what should be done know. Either the table should be removed or replaced moved to somewhere else. At the very least, the table should be renamed the "Changes in Armenian population in Anatolia from 1890s to 1920s" or something like that, because the current name is definitely POV and misleading. DenizCc (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Photos

Has any one checked the relevance of the photos published in the article, e.g., “The remains of Armenians massacred at Erzinjan” there is no date and there is no location for this photo (Erzincan is a whole province), no author (licence for use?) not to mention that a part from the inserted caption nothing would suggest the pile of human remains belonged to Armenians or of the way these died. The “Map of massacre locations and deportation and extermination centers” this seems like original research to me. Hittit (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Erzinjan is not a whole province - in 1915 Erzinjan was a town in Erzurum province. If the image copyright note is correct, the photograph has a clearly stated source: fig 53 in chapter 27 of "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" by Henry Morgenthau, published in 1918, with an unambiguous caption "A relic of the Armenian massacres at Erzingan. Such mementos are found all over Armenia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Culture section: Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross; wall paintings at Ani

Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross shows continuing political tension over treatment of Armenian cultural property within Turkish borders (here I think Turkish deconsecration of Armenian church to form Turkish museum). At Ani, the failure to prevent vandalism of murals, and their whitewashing and/or removal likewise erodes Armenian heritage. People happy if I have a stab at including this? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of Victims

Can you kindly provide names of Armenian victims, their date of birth, manner of death and other information? Thank you?Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time by asking such ridiculous questions. Your most recent edit onto this article alone violated about half a dozen of Wikipedia's rules and should it be added again, especially in such a bad faith manner, action from the administrators will be requested.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, it's not ridiculous. I think he is right. Can you provide this information? But you must provide victims of the "genocide". Not the executed rebellious people because of their crimes or those innocent people who died because of hunger. I think Yahalom Kashny's question is a gentle question. Also, there are pictures from 1984 Erzurum, Turkey earthquake who some ultra nationalist Armenians claim they are pictures of the "genocide". Please do not show them here. Greetings.88.226.56.52 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"According to the documents, the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before 1915 stood at 1,256,000. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later in 1917." I know the author mentioned, Murat Bardakci, personally and you are only writing the parts that you want to write. There was a deportation so it is normal that a great number of people are no longer in the Ottoman registry or whatsoever. You cannot come out and say that all the missing people (nearly 1 million) were killed when the accusations are delicate and the numbers very significant.

216.165.49.85 (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC) BO

Why not Armenian Holocaust?

Why is it referred only to a Genocide when many have referred to it as the 20century's first Holocaust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.13.10 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to have a reliable source or something like that. 67.80.27.38 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The word holocaust was used in English from the 18th Century in much the same way as it is today. It has come to mean mainly the extermination of European Jews, but that is recent. Writing in the 1920's, Winston Churchill used the word to describe the Armenian massacre. Ref:Winston Churchill, The World in Crisis, Volume 4: The Aftermath, New York, 1923, p. 158. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because in English, the event is known as the Armenian Genocide.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ndouchi, 6 April 2011

Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Syriac-Aramaic, Assyrians and Greeks,

Ndouchi (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Yes, and? First, you need a reliable source to verify that information. Second, even if you do provide such a source, that wouldn't change the accuracy of this article; instead, it would be information you should add to some other article(s). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee

Under the heading Study of the Armenian Genocide there is a link to the British historian Arnold Toynbee as having authored a 1917 report. Seeing as the British historian by that name, in the article from that link died in 1883, I'm guessing that the link should properly go to his nephew, Arnold J. Toynbee. The proper link is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee

DrMichaelWright (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that has been resolved by now. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Joint Austrian and German mission

in Joint Austrian and German mission section there is a smile (), after ref 61. --85.106.231.101 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a joking matter, of course, but it was due to a small error in page reference, not vandalism, and it was corrected thusly. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Names of Victims

Can you kindly provide names of Armenian victims, their date of birth, manner of death and other information? Thank you?Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time by asking such ridiculous questions. Your most recent edit onto this article alone violated about half a dozen of Wikipedia's rules and should it be added again, especially in such a bad faith manner, action from the administrators will be requested.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, it's not ridiculous. I think he is right. Can you provide this information? But you must provide victims of the "genocide". Not the executed rebellious people because of their crimes or those innocent people who died because of hunger. I think Yahalom Kashny's question is a gentle question. Also, there are pictures from 1984 Erzurum, Turkey earthquake who some ultra nationalist Armenians claim they are pictures of the "genocide". Please do not show them here. Greetings.88.226.56.52 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"According to the documents, the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before 1915 stood at 1,256,000. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later in 1917." I know the author mentioned, Murat Bardakci, personally and you are only writing the parts that you want to write. There was a deportation so it is normal that a great number of people are no longer in the Ottoman registry or whatsoever. You cannot come out and say that all the missing people (nearly 1 million) were killed when the accusations are delicate and the numbers very significant.

216.165.49.85 (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC) BO

Correction Regarding A Sentence At "Defining genocide"

Under the topic "Defining genocide", "Many Turkish intellectuals have been prosecuted for characterizing the massacres as genocide." is stated. However in the following citations, namely 164 and 165, only Orhan Pamuk is mentioned. Also, Orhan Pamuk is a novelist, hardly a historan. He "has subsequently stated his intent was to draw attention to freedom of expression issues.", also the charges against him were dropped. Thus, the sentence used is misinforming by stating that "many" Turkish intellectuals were prosecuted. Furthermore, the sentence is ireelevant to the topic (the Armenian Genocide), as the mentioned writer did not use the term genocide because he believed it to be so, but to draw attention to freedom of expression issues. Palamut (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "persecuted" might be better than "prosecuted" - that word describes the situation more accurately since often it has involved the threat of possible prosecution, prosecutions that are never intended to be successful but which are intended to be warnings to others, and threats of violence from shady non-judicial groups. And it can go so far as to involve murder, of course. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bozkurt93, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please edit this page ! it doesnt obey your 5 rules! Give two idea neutral point of view. We think that there is no genocide so you have to edit it!

Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle. The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration. The "wiki process" and as the final decision-making mechanism for all content. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment. Free licensing of content; in practice defined by each project as public domain, GFDL, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. Maintaining room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems. On the English Wikipedia, an Arbitration Committee has the authority to make certain binding, final decisions such as banning an editor. Other wikis have set up similar frameworks. [edit]

Bozkurt93 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should edit the title first.UN still hasn't accepted this as genocide so this article is baloney from the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.49.85 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not Armenian Holocaust?

Why is it referred only to a Genocide when many have referred to it as the 20century's first Holocaust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.13.10 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to have a reliable source or something like that. 67.80.27.38 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The word holocaust was used in English from the 18th Century in much the same way as it is today. It has come to mean mainly the extermination of European Jews, but that is recent. Writing in the 1920's, Winston Churchill used the word to describe the Armenian massacre. Ref:Winston Churchill, The World in Crisis, Volume 4: The Aftermath, New York, 1923, p. 158. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because in English, the event is known as the Armenian Genocide.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ndouchi, 6 April 2011

Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Syriac-Aramaic, Assyrians and Greeks,

Ndouchi (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Yes, and? First, you need a reliable source to verify that information. Second, even if you do provide such a source, that wouldn't change the accuracy of this article; instead, it would be information you should add to some other article(s). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Toynbee

Under the heading Study of the Armenian Genocide there is a link to the British historian Arnold Toynbee as having authored a 1917 report. Seeing as the British historian by that name, in the article from that link died in 1883, I'm guessing that the link should properly go to his nephew, Arnold J. Toynbee. The proper link is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee

DrMichaelWright (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that has been resolved by now. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Joint Austrian and German mission

in Joint Austrian and German mission section there is a smile (), after ref 61. --85.106.231.101 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a joking matter, of course, but it was due to a small error in page reference, not vandalism, and it was corrected thusly. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page Persecution of Muslims, in particular the Balkan section.

Hello there Please provide a link or mention of the Wikipedia page Persecution of Muslims, in particular the Balkan section. I mean: "According to Mark Levene, the Victorian public in the 1870s paid much more attention to the massacres and expulsions of Christians than to massacres and expulsions of Muslims, even if on a greater scale. He further suggests that such massacres were even favored by some circles. Mark Levene also argues that the dominant powers, by supporting "nation-statism" at the Congress of Berlin, legitimized "the primary instrument of Balkan nation-building": ethnic cleansing.[22] Hall points out that atrocities were committed by all sides during the Balkan conflicts. Deliberate terror was designed to instigate population movements out of particular territories. The aim of targeting the civilian population was to carve ethnically homogeneous countries.[23]

Justin McCarty estimates that between 1821 and 1922 around five and a half million Muslims were driven out of Europe and five million more were killed or died of disease and starvation while fleeing.[24] Cleansing occurred as a result of the Serbian and Greek independence in the 1820s and 1830s, the Russo-Turkish War 1877-1878, and culminating in the Balkan Wars 1912-1913. Mann describes these acts as “murderous ethnic cleansing on stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe” referring to the 1914 Carnegie Endowment report.[25][26] It is estimated that at the turn of the 20th century there were 4,4 million Muslims living in the Balkan zone of Ottoman control.[27] More than one million Muslims left the Balkans in the last three decades of the 19th century.[28] Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey.[27]

Between 10,000[29] and 30,000[30][31][32] Turks were killed in Tripolitsa by Greek rebels in the summer of 1821, including the entire Jewish population of the city. Similar events as these occurred also elsewhere during the Greek Revolution resulting in the eradication and expulsion of virtually the entire Turkish population of the Morea. These acts ensured the ethnic homogenization of the area under the rule of the future modern Greek state.[33] In 1830 the Muslims population in Morea is put at 300,000. In 1878 the Muslim inhabitants in Thessaly are estimated to be 150,000 and in 1897 the Muslims numbered 50,000 in Crete. By 1919 there were virtually no Muslims left in Morea and Thessaly and only 20,000 in Crete.[34]"

thanks very much

Halva22 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Halva22

This article is about the Armenian Genocide and nothing that you have mentioned above has anything at all to do with the Armenian Genocide. Most of the content discussed above is to do with the Greek War of Independence and the peaceful population exchange between the Ottoman Empire and Greece. Your selective interpretation is highly misleading, and although is made in good faith, fosters racial hatred. I politely ask you to be more careful with how you present these issues because your approach is likely to backfire very quickly.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually think there is room for inclusion about the critical role that the muhajirs (immigrants) played during the Armenian Genocide. Many of the Muslims who were expelled or forced to flee from the Balkans or the Northern Caucasus (Circassians especially) during the wars of 1877-78 and later were installed in areas where the Armenian was relatively large. Given their relative affluence, many of the muhajirs harbored resentment toward the Armenians and while there were some clashes every now, things did not come to the fore until the genocide in 1915. There was a free-for-all competition to drive away or kill enthusiastically the inhabitants and seize their properties. If I'm not mistaken, these muhajirs then moved into the now empty homes. I need to find more sources but their mention is not completely out of place. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a useful contribution succinctly put.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a whole page on the Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians by Russia (the page is "of Circassians", but we should note that these "Cherkes" as the Turks called them also included many other peoples, some not even Muslim originally). I would say its important also to add that, as King points out in his book The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus (as well as others, but I have this one on hand), the Ottomon Empire had a conscious policy of settling the Caucasian refugees in areas populated by Christian minorities in order to dilute their presence (hence, they were settled extensively in Trebizond, the Balkans and Western Armenia). The result however was a rise in tensions between the Christian populations and the Caucasian arrivals (esp. Circassians, some of whom at that time had a custom of raiding rival clans) at a time of crisis for the Ottomon Empire. Also I have a correction to make: Marshal is also a bit incorrect on the date of the arrival of the Circassians: there had been occasional floods of Caucasians fleeing Russia before the 1860s, then there was the main tidal wave of the Circassian expulsion (and of some others) in the 60s. There were further flights of Caucasian Muslims (not of Circassians-who were already largely gone- but mainly Chechens and Dagestanis) into the Ottomon Empire after the failed uprising in 1877-8, but these were marginal compared to earlier waves. Then there were the various flights of Muslims out of the Balkans (often ethnic Turks, but also Bosnians, Albanians, Hungarians and Muslim Bulgarians), mainly fleeing newly-established Christian states who persecuted them. At large, all of these "waves" had the effect of "rocking" the ship (if I continue my metaphor) of the Ottomon Empire and thus greatly destabilizing it, especially from the perspective of the social relations between ethnic groups. In addition, it is easy to imagine how in this era of ethnic cleansing, Talaat and the others got the idea that they could get away with an attempt to wipe out an entire people. --Yalens (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Message of Thanks To The Editors

Hi - I read a lot about world history, especially conflict situations like Cyprus, The Holocaust, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia etc. I often find the talk pages more interesting than the articles, because you get a sense of the underlying debates. It's also common to see aggressive & partisan editing being contained by small teams of patient, fair & ethical volunteers. As a wikireader, I wish to thank Meowy, THOTH, VartanM & The Myotis for their work on this page. Well done!

You better not thank Meowy. An unhonest person who tried to falsify history with sockpuppets.:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy/Archive)

Chonanh (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bristol Paper

Why there isn't any word about Admiral Bristol's paper in the article?: www.tallarmeniantale.com/Bristol__Mark_Lambert.pdf --88.235.131.65 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because these article is hijacked by Armenians and their supporters. Critical voices are not welcome.

Chonanh (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's Quote

I was suprised that Hitler's famous quote in order to justify his decision about committing genocide "After all who remembers Armenians today?" is not included in the article. I think it is very important but I am not sure which place is the most suitable for this one. Do you have any idea ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Is there any reliable source that proves this? I searched this quote by G00GLE search engine and got less than 100 results (including this page). --88.235.255.13 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wer erinnert sich denn heute noch an die Armenier" in German reflects only 3 results. Armenian tales are getting taller.--88.235.255.13 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is even displayed on the holocaust museum at U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_Armenian_Quote.JPG with the reference. Ali55te (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the holocaust museum at U.S. uses this famous quote.

“Who Remembers the Armenians?”attributed to German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), was in all probability made on August 22, 1939, in a speech to his military chiefs and commanding field generals at his mountain retreat, the Berghof, at Berchtesgaden. (Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs, Dictionary of Genocide: M-Z, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p. 470.)

Hitler quoted the "anihilation of the Armenians" to stimulate the annihilation of Poland and mercilessoperation against "Poles (Hitler used the term Polish speaking race)".

Takabeg (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only the holocaust museum uses this quote. Most of the academicians and governors also use this quote to point out the importance of genocide recognition. The quote shows that if the Armenian Genocide was acknowledged before the world war II and the preparators was punished according to the international law someone would think twice before doing this kind of event again. Ali55te (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For your information, that "SOMEONE" or "SOME PEOPLE" already KNEW very well what Genocide was and They DID NOT THINK TWICE.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide Have a nice day . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.97.247 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As is seen in its article, the Armenian quote is of dubious origin. It is a text given to an American journalist in Berlin by "someone". Two other texts of Hitler's two sepeeches he made on the same day were found, but neither contains any allusions to Armenians. Therefore it is not reliably proved that Hitler made such an allusion to Armenians, therefore its use in an article as if an authentic historical fact would not be correct. Filanca (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What you state is only an Original Research, Filanca. 195.170.108.10 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I based what I wrote above to the Armenian quote article. It looks like well documented. Filanca (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article you mentioned miss lots of information and referenes I will fix that soon. Recently in 2007 a German scholar Richard Albrecht published a book related to this issue and first time he published the original L-3 document http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=160809 and he states that the version which is published by the Louis P. Lochner is the one which is closest to the summery of the Hitler's speech on that day. Ali55te (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read the abstract of Albrecht's article and made some more research. It looks like there is still contraversy regarding the Armenian quote. For example, while Norman Naimark said that we can not be certain if Hitler really referred to Armenians in that speech, in the Armenian quote article, this was written in an ambigious way and rather Mr Naimark's words "Nazi leadership was surely aware of the Armenian genocide" were emphasized -- I do not say the second is unimportant, but as for the authenticity of this quote, his direct remark on it is more relevant. I've wrote Mr Naimark's opinion about the authenticty of the quote in an unabiguous way. I've also added another recent source questioning the Armenian quote. I've gathered all those in the "contesting interpretations" section since the entrance paragraph was becoming bloated. Filanca (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The most recent person I've read commenting on the quote has been Margaret Lavinia Anderson, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, in a book published this year. She writes "we have no reason to doubt the remark [i.e., the Armenian Quote] is genuine" ("Who Still Talked about the Extermination of the Armenians: German Talk and German Silences" in A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, ed. R. Suny (Oxford, 2011), p. 199). I posted this on the talk page of the Armenian Quote article some months ago.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not think that I want to speculate here but there are so many reasons that I can not understand how she can be so sure. War Crimes Tribunal rejeted to use the document as evidence after examining it. Lechner, the journalist who is the sole source of the document, when asked where he obtained it, spoke vaguely about some person whose name he could not fully remember. That principal source person never came up and told how he obtained the document of a secret speech of Hitler. Lechner used to participate a campaign to grant self-determination rights to minorities in the Ottoman Empire, including Armenians and named use of propaganda to reach that aim. Honestly, I feel like there is good reason to doubt the quote is a forgery. Filanca (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Document 1014-PS includes the quote as the Lochner writes(attack to Poland and who remember the Armenians today part). As a result it does not matter if L-3 is not offered as evidence during trials. Ali55te (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is written as "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" in German. Ali55te (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the source about 1014-PS containing the Armenian quote? Filanca (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally people get back their senses. I applaud you for removing this falsification attributed to Hitler in the article. Definitely more will follow in the coming years. It's hideous to see an article with so much lies and fraud selling as the truth (with the Hitler quote this had been done here for years).Chonanh (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal explanation

On 29 June 1915 Mehmet Talaat Pasha send a telegram to the governor of Diyarbakır after he received information about the systematic massacare of Christian population there. In the telegram Mehmet Talaat Pasha ordered to stop the deportation of non-Armenian christian elements in Diyarbakır beacuse of deportation has a high chance to end in massacre (http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=100). The telegram clearly shows that Mehmet Talaat Pasha was aware that the deportations will cause the massacre of the deported groups.

is personal explanation/interpretation of document by User:Ali55te. I'm afraid that such propaganda will help denial of the Armenian Genocide. We must provide information without propagandas, personal point of views Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Takebag. Thank you for your constructive criticism. Now I added all the necessary references you can see it. The only point is that using the term propaganda is not a polite way. I also used that term before and now I realized that it is not good to use it. I wrote that edit fast. Now all the references are there. Ali55te (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The document in the website of Turkish Historical Society said (I'm sorry but my English is not good.):

To the governor of Diyarbakir, (cypher)

Recently, we took notice that massacres were committed against Armenians and other all Christians within the province, and then, by the agency of persons who had been sent to Diyarbakir, that some seven hundred people of Marhasa in Mardin, Armenians, and other Christian inhabitants were taken outside of the city at night and slaughtered like sheep, and that the total of those killed to date in these massacres is estimated at two thousand. and that they were afraid that if this is not ended speedily and definitey, the Muslim inhabitants of neighboring provinces would rise up and engage in a general slaughter of Christians.

Because it's not appropreate that the political measures that was assumed to take Armenians under control would be extended and be adopted to the other Christians, such kind of events that can have a very negative efect on public opinion, and especially can threaten the lives of Christians, must be ended immideately and the facts must be clarified.

The Turkish Historical Society uses this document to prove that Talaat Pasha had not known about massacres, and that he made effort to stop massacres and clarify the facts. Takabeg (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkish Historical Society is an organization of the Turkish Government as a result their interpretation of the events can be accepted as a last choice. The interpretation of international and independent academicians is mostly reliable and can be used as facts. I did not put the whole telegram because if we start to put everything the page will become huge. If anyone thinks that I did something wrong when I summarize it feel free to change it. Ali55te (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondly the link contains only the telegram and it does not matter if it linked on another page for some other purposes. The telegram itself is an evidence. Ali55te (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are different explanations on Talat's this telegram:

• According to Henham, Talat emphasized the importance given to the protection of the lives of the Armenian and Christian populations (Ralph J. Henham, The Criminal Law of Genocide: International, Comparative and Contextual Aspects, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p. 24.)
• According to Akçam, "Talat's instruction was to exempt the non- Armenian Christians from the persecution" (Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, Zed Books, 2004, p. 175.)
• Hans-Lukas Kieser quoted Akçam.

I don't know whether Akçam manipulated or not. I don't know whether Turkish Historical Society fudged up documents or not. I cannot take Akçam's interpretation with this document and its interpretation to modern Turkish.

Takabeg (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans-Lukas does not quote Taner Akcam, he quotes directly with using the book that I referred in the paragraph. Secondly the point here is the one mentioned by Taner Akcam in the book you mentioned, but you ommited the most imporant two sentences "The wording of the document is very clear. People including government officials, are being killed by order of the governer. But this not important to Talat, Clearly his instruction was to exempt the non-Armenian christians from prescution Ali55te (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And most most importantly the book of Henhamp.24, the author makes that statement with referencing a speech from Şükrü Elekdağ writing which is a politican in Turkey. This is not accaptable.Ali55te (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ommit "The wording of the document is very clear. People including government officials, are being killed by order of the governer. But this not important to Talat, Clearly his instruction was to exempt the non-Armenian christians from prescution". This is explanation of Akçam and irrelevant to this document. Takabeg (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When we interpret this document to the letter, we cannot get explanation of Akçam. Takabeg (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Taner Akçam puts the second part of the telegram which you translated from the page of turkish historical societ just several hours ago and it sits several paragraph up in this discussion. Read the whole paragraph from the book. How can you state that taner akçam is not speaking about that telegram ? Apart from that you did omit the statement you never mentioned that part before I mention it it is clear in the logs Ali55te (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim on Henham and Elekdağand reminded me of an users claim on Bilal Şimşir's British Foreign Office records in Talk:Occupation of Constantinople#Sources. Takabeg (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this article ? What does it have to do with the telegram of Talat Paşa ? This is an unaccaptable behaviour in a discussion like this. Ali55te (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't accept a source, only because the author is a Turkish politician. Other user couldn't accept source, only because the editor is a Turkish diplomat. Both claims are not reasonable, because original documents they used are same content everywhere. Takabeg (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sukru Elekdag is not only a politican he is known as one of the politican with far-right political point of view. http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=20949 Ali55te (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of the telegram according to Akçam is July 12, 1915. Date of the telegram on the Turkish Historical Society is June 29, 1915. Most other details match, like the sender and receiver, estimated number of deaths at 2,000 people and concern over lives of Christians in general together with the translation of the last paragraph. However, Akçam also writes it is clear from the telegram that "government officials are being killed" while this is not indicated in the text of the telegram on the Turkish Historical Society's web site. Talat Pasha might have written two similar telegrams within two weeks. But even if they are different, the two telegrams would be so similar that one may be justified to think that Akçam's comments are related to both. Filanca (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. User shew only one document and omitted original meaning. These edits must be considered as fake. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Taner akcam uses the document 71 in "Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler" you can look at teh 102th reference which is used in the book. I found the document from the Turkish government website. http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/Handlers/hhFile.ashx?Id=b7087217-ab97-4139-bd51-9a4384f88e0e If you cheeck the document 71 which is located in the page 98 of the pdf document or (66 as it written on the page) you will see that it is the same document as the one I used here I paste it :

Diyârbekir Vilâyeti'ne

Son zamânlarda vilâyet dâhilindeki Ermeniler ile bilâ-tefrîk-i mezheb Hırîstiyanlar hakkında katl-i âmlar tertib olundugu ve ez-cümle ahîren Diyârbekir'den sevk olunan eshâs vâsıtasıyle Mardin'de murahhasa ile Ermenilerden ve diger Hırîstiyan ahâlîden yedi yüz kisinin geceleri sehirden hârice çıkarılarak koyun gibi bogazlatdırıldıgı ve simdiye kadar bu katl-i âmlarda maktûl olanların iki bin kisi tahmîn olundugu ve buna serî‘ ve kat‘î bir netîce verilmezse civâr vilâyâtdaki ahâli-i �slâmiyenin de kıyâm ederek bi'l-umûm Hırîstiyanların katletmelerinden korkuldugu istihbâr edilmisdir. Ermeniler hakkında ittihâz edilen tedâbir-i inzibâtiye ve siyâsiyenin diger Hıristiyanlara tesmîli kat‘iyyen gayr-i câ’iz oldugundan efkâr-ı umûmiyye üzerinde pek fenâ te’sîr bırakacak ve bi'l-hâssa ale'l-itlâk Hıristiyanların hayâtını tehdîd edecek bu kabîl vekâyi‘a derhâl hitâm verilmesi ve hakîkat-ı hâlin is‘ârı. Fî 29 Haziran sene [1]331

You can see the telegram is sent on 29 Haziran which is June 29 exactly matches with the reference I give (the users does not know turkish can use google translate http://translate.google.com and then type "29 Haziran" from Turkish -> English) and the text also matches which is written in old turkish and on ttk website it is written the the text is converted to modern turkish but anyway any turkish user can read this one easily. The biggest irony here is that you find the reference from Taner akcam and then you started to deny that is does not related to this telegram. Ali55te (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The telegram you found in the government archive seems to match with that on the Historical Society's web site. Some details of that telegram does not match with the one mentioned in Akçam's book, like the date and partially content (about killings of government officials). Filanca (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.157.58.98, 14 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change Constantinople to Istanbul.

91.157.58.98 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that Istanbul became the offical name in 1930. Since the events in this article predate 1930, it may be that Constantinople should still be used here. How to other articles on subjects prior to 1930 handle this? Hmains (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical references always use "Constantinople" to refer to the city, "Istanbul" was not it's official name until 1930. For references after 1930, the name "Istanbul" would be used. KettleCooker (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the above - and, no reference -

 Not done  Chzz  ►  04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te)

We must remove edits of User:Ali55te. If we permit his/her edits, he/she may give up. Because he/she will know all of his/her efforts will become wasted. If we don't permit his/her edits he/she mill come back here. Especially dealing with Turkish sources, we have to pay attention to the fact that User:Ali55te twisted sources for his/her own original explanation. Above all, we must not make forhabitual offenders like him/her to get a taste of sockpuppecy.

Same discussion is continuing in Talk:Istanbul Pogrom#Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te). Takabeg (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Music Update

We need to include "Yes, It's Genocide" by Serj Tankian under Music, it also about this tragedy. Serj is Armenian, and the song is completely in Armenian as well. Sicarius001 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article should clarify (at least once) that Constantinople is modern day Istanbul

Many readers may not even be aware that it is the same physical place. The point is to situate the reader geographically. Thus, I believe this could achieved by replacing "Constantinople" by "Constantinople (modern day Istanbul)" in the first mention without any lose of Historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryseriousperson (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

armenian genocide

To correct a point of fact in this otherwise excellent article, the painting by Arshile Gorky "the Artist and his Mother" is not in the Cafesjian museum in Yerevan. It is in the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Other paintings by Gorky are in the MoMA and Metropolitan museums in that city. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshilovna (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed that incorrect information. But I think your "this otherwise excellent article" comment is equally incorrect! I don't know of a worse-written article. Meowy 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is a horribly biased article. For example - the recounting of every politician who has failed to "officially recognize the genocide" smacks of outrageous bias. It is also a catalog of weasel words from start to finish. Even if this article is entirely accurate accurate (I'm not equipped to judge) the lack of a neutral tone immediately renders me suspicious of heavy nationalist bias. Manning (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are not equipped to judge, maybe you should have kept your opinions to yourself until you get equipped? However, this article will not help much in the equiping. The problem with this article is that it is far too long and far too convoluted, is full of off-topic material, and seems to have been written for the editors who wrote it rather than for any users who would wish to read it. Its bias arises from the fact that much content has been put there as a response to genocide deniers. This is an entirely wrong way to write an article. Do we write articles on geography for those who think, and who will always think, that the earth is flat? Meowy 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Մեծ Եղեռն translated incorrectly

Մեծ Եղեռն does not mean the Great Crime. The literal translation is the Great Enormity or the Great Atrocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotbandito (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought "The Great Calamity" was the usual translation. Meowy 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Մեծ Եղեռն does mean Great Crime or Great Atrocity. Եղեռն even by itself means a heinous crime. Rotbindo, for unexplained reasons, thinks that "Great Calamity" is the correct translation. Thinking and knowing are two different things. What is the basis and reasoning for the change from "Great Crime" to "Great Calamity" which occurred on April 24, 2012 at 2111? This is a crucial historical question, not one that can be consigned to well-intentioned but faulty guessing. I will await a response before making a definitive move to correct the error as an editor. Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary translates Եղեռն as "slaughter," "carnage," "genocide," "crime," and "evil deed." I was under the assumption that "calamity" was a word that had long been agreed under, but it looks like that among all of these "slaughter" or "crime" would be the most apt definitions here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To Marshall Bagramyan: Your dictionary supports my dictionaries. I therefore intend to correct "Great Calamity" back to "Great Crime". I am completely puzzled by what made you change your mind about the meaning of the term after it had stood at "Great Crime" since April 9, 2010. This is a matter of concern to me both as an editor on Wikipedia as well as student of the Armenian Genocide. I hope whatever came to bear in the reversion to "Great Calamity" will not happen again. I am prepared to go the length in presenting not only the consensus of meaning of "yeghern" from one dictionary, but from numerous dictionaries--Armenian-Armenian, Armenian-English, English Armenian, as well as put the usage of the term in its historical context, particularly in its relation to the other terms used such as "Aghet". Thank you for your response. Diranakir (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I had mistakenly confused Rotbindo's and Meowy's comments at the top. My "thinking and knowing" comment was addressed to Meowy. To Rotbandito: that "Great Enormity" (aside from its awkwardness as an English term) and "Great Atrocity" capture aspects of the meaning of "Medz Yeghern" offers no grounds for declaring "Great Crime" wrong. Agreed? "Crime" is the essential concept that weaves together all the other possible renderings of "yeghern". As such, it is both conservative and responsible and has a solid tradition of use by responsible thinkers. The impression that "yeghern" means simply "calamity" has been widely promoted, and that is probably why Meowy was thrown into confusion. Diranakir (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. And I do not get "thrown into confusion". It should be "Great Calamity". It is not correct to give direct translations where the direct translation alters the essential meaning of the original. Nor is it correct use modern meanings to translate a phrase that was coined almost a century ago. What is required is a translation which communicates the full meaning of the original. Most sources do use "calamity" as the translation, and do not use a pov word like "crime". Personally, I feel it is particularly objectionable to use the "great crime" translation: it is a corruption and distortion of the original meaning. It was a phrase that was used INTERNALLY, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, by those who survived the genocide as a way of trying to define and describe events which could otherwise not be defined and described. They would not have used a trivial, everyday word like "crime" to define the disaster that fell upon them and I think that it is an insult to their memory to advocate such a useage. Meowy 16:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: You say "It is not correct to give direct translations where the direct translation alters the essential meaning of the original." You are here begging the question. This discussion is precisely about that question. Please state what dictionary or dictionaries you cite as proof that "crime" is an alteration of what you take to be the original meaning. Where can I find that "original meaning". Please provide the reference. Besides that, saying "It is not correct to give direct translations" is not an intelligible statement in itself. Please explain. For my part, I will propose that you look up Եղեռն in Mesrob G. Kouyoumdjian's "A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English", 1970, Atlas Press, Beirut and tell me how he defines the word. Transliterating the Armenian title, it is "Untartsag Pararan Hayeren-Ankleren". You should also pay attention to what Marshall Bagramyan has clearly told us his dictionary states as the meaning of Եղեռն. Can you refer me to any English-Armenian dictionary that defines "calamity" as Եղեռն? Furthermore, your idea that the meaning of Եղեռն has substantially changed over the past century does not hold water and cannot be demonstrated. Diranakir (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not debating this further because I do not need to: you have presented no legitimate arguments! Dictionaries are not sources, and we are not translating single words but the meaning of a phrase. There are numerous sources for "Great Calamity". Meowy 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: You are debating this no further because you have nothing tangible to support your point of view. I welcome the end of our discussion. Diranakir (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I check the greatest authority Hrachia Acharian's dictionary he translates Yeghern both as "calamity, evil (and in new literary Armenian as crime)" [2]. Gazifikator (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: Ashot Sukiasyan, recipient in 2004 of the highest award in philology of the Republic of Armenia for his 1967 work, Thesaurus of The Armenian Language [Hai Lezvi Homanishneri Patsadragan Pararan], gives the following meanings of "yeghern" (very partial list):

1. crime 2. slaughter 3. Evil act, calamity.

If you take the consensus of all the definitions offered in Sukiasyan and other Armenian-Armenian, Armenian-English, English Armenian dictionaries for the word "yeghern" it will be clear that malicious human agency is at their root. A calamity can be a flood or an earthquake, in other words an "act of God". This is not the sort of "calamity" meant by "yeghern". "Yeghern" denotes an egregious evil act, not an "act of God", and that is why "crime" is the best translation. Diranakir (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There is also Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն. Gazifikator (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: In my reading, with the characteristic economy of the Armenian language Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն means "the great crime [or atrocity, or massacre, or slaughter] to which the Armenian people were subjected." Calamity, catastrophe, tragedy are definitely connotations of the word, but do not reflect its fundamental meaning. Please see Եղեռն at http://www.nayiri.com/imagedDictionaryBrowser.jsp?dictionaryId=25&pageNumber=179 Diranakir (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your incorrect edits are compounded by your ignorance about Wikipedia editing practices. Your "my reading" reasoning is unimportant because "my reading" is original research. You have removed a properly cited fact from this article and replaced it by your pov opinion unsupported by any sources. The "Great Calamity" translation will ALWAYS be returned to this article because it is supported by hundreds of sources. Your edit will be removed and will continue to be removed because it is supported by no sources. Please stop wasting our time here. Meowy 14:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Armenian is strange, in Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն it is impossible to use Հանցանք in place of Եղեռն, even if you believe that both mean "the great crime [or atrocity, or massacre, or slaughter] to which the Armenian people were subjected." The rules of Armenian are one, and in this case thay are similar to English. The Great Armenian Calamity sounds normally. The "Medz Yeghern" was first used in the circle of Constantinople Armenians (by Teodik, as I know), not by Ashot Sukiassian in 1960's. Sorry, but your research is completely useless and is really a wasting of time... Gazifikator (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy: On May 5 you said "dictionaries are not sources", and yet used a dictionary entry to make a reversion. Aside from that, everything you said was strictly POV.

Gazificator: I assume that in your view, because of its use in the term "Hayotz Medz Yeghern" and the Armenian construction of that phrase ["The Armenians' Great 'Yeghern'] the word yeghern must shed all its meaning of evil, moral outrage, slaughter, atrocity in favor of a term that has no moral implication at all and can easily be interpreted in English as something that just occurred out of the blue. You have cited one dictionary definition and what you privately know and believe. Let me offer something more specific:

The following open letter was sent by Doctor Claude Atamian, grand-nephew of the great Armenian poet Siamanto, to Madame Valérie Hannin, Director of the French monthly "L'Histoire" on April 24, 2009. I present the 11th paragraph of the French original, followed by my translation of the opening lines.

The French Original

Un élément essentiel de la désinformation au sujet du thème « Génocide arménien » concerne la traduction volontairement biaisée et en fait totalement erronée du vocable désignant en langue arménienne la tragédie de 1915 : « Medz Yeghern » c’est-à-dire le « Grand Crime» et non pas la « Grande Catastrophe », terme systématiquement utilisé par tous les pétitionnaires turcs exprimant en ce moment leur « sincère compassion » envers leurs amis arméniens. Fuad Dundar lui-même, à la fin de son interview, cite «... les massacres de Medz Yeghern (« la Grande Catastrophe » selon la terminologie arménienne)». Or, une catastrophe, c’est un événement qui ne relève pas forcément d’une décision humaine. Le Petit Robert la définit comme suit : accident, sinistre causant la mort de nombreuses personnes. S’agissant d’une grande catastrophe, on peut penser au tsunami ou à un tremblement de terre etc. D’ailleurs, le terme qui désigne la zone sinistrée du tremblement de terre de 1988 dans la République d’Arménie est « aghèti goti », mot à mot « la zone de la catastrophe ». On pense au destin, à Dieu, mais pas à la responsabilité de gouvernements criminels comme le furent indubitablement ceux des Jeunes-Turcs ou des Nazis. Cette dénomination de Grande Catastrophe permet tout compte fait de ne pas désigner l’Etat assassin, contrairement à la traduction correcte de « Medz Yeghern ». Il n’est pas étonnant que la « campagne de pardon » de quelques intellectuels turcs, (d’ailleurs tournée en dérision par Fuad Dundar lui-même à la toute fin de son interview, sous prétexte qu’elle n’a été signée que par 30.000 personnes), insiste lourdement sur cette dénomination de « Grande Catastrophe », adoptée par la plupart des Turcs, négationnistes ou pas, dans le but de masquer l’étendue du crime perpétré par leur gouvernement en 1915. [3]

The Translation

One of the essential elements of disinformation on the subject of "The Armenian Genocide" is the willfully biased and totally false translation of the Armenian term that designates the tragedy of 1915. "Medz Yeghern" means the "Great Crime" and not the "Great Catastrophe". . . . A catastrophe is an occurrence that does not necessarily involve human decision. . . . The term "Great Catastrophe" in the final analysis permits one to avoid indicating the state that kills, in contrast to the correct translation of 'Medz Yeghern".

The Link http://www.armenweb.org/espaces/louise/reportages/revue-histoire.htm

Diranakir (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish name for Holocaust is Catastrophe (Shoah), and the Armenian case seems to be the same. What's the problem? I don't understand how can we change a meaning which was given by the whole nation? It's sad that Medz Yeghern became a part of great game played by dirty politicians, and for sure that is not enough reason to change the meanings of terms. We all are spending a lot of time on this useless (and disruptive, please read WP:Disrupt) conversation, so sorry, I'm leaving this... Gazifikator (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather sad that Diranakir cannot seem to comprehend what deep meaning "Medz Yeghern" actually has. It and the Shoah = Catastrophe example are cases of catastrophic events (man-made or natural) being named by those who survived them using non-specific and almost euphemistic terms (another example would be the 19th-century potato famine in Ireland and Scotland being decribed as the "Great Hunger" or the "Bad Times" - there are probably many more examples). Meowy 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: The problem is the radical difference between the two cases. Responsibility for The Shoah, more widely known as The Holocaust, was long ago accepted and firmly established by the perpetrator state (and therefore the world) as a genocide for which it was responsible.. Germany has since offered recognition and restitution to Israel and the Jewish people on many occasions as a token of that fact. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish state has for one century adamantly and categorically denied any responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, let alone offered any compensation individually or collectively. The Armenian Genocide came first. As such, the Armenians were the first to name their genocide. That name does not need to conform to or be parallel to the Shoah or Holocaust. If this ccnversation seems useless to you then you are free to leave it. It will remain a crucial issue. Diranakir (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are here doing some agenda warring. Maybe you should leave, given that the issue has not been that important to you over the past two years: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=354885245. Meowy 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: I am saying things in exactly the words I mean. I'm not going anywhere. Diranakir (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit, however, is going unless you can provide suitable sources for your claim. I have fact tagged the "Great Crime" translation. The letter you cited is not a source, it is someone expressing their opinion in a letter and has no more weight here than your own opinion. Meowy 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template While an editor may add this template ["citation needed"] to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Diranakir (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that the phrase has been fact tagged, I am giving you two weeks to provide a suitable source for your claim. That is more than sufficient time given that you have been edit warring this issue for two years. If you do not provide a source, I will deleted the "great crime" translation. If you revert my edit I will raise the matter with administrators and recommend that you are blocked from editing this page. Meowy 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We have arrived at a point in this discussion where a compromise in which two related English renderings of "Medz Yeghern" will not be allowed to stand by Meowy. The core meaning of "yeghern" in all Armenian dictionaries is: an illegitimate, perverse, immoral, evil act. According to Meowy, this meaning is to be completely sacrificed because it is part of a "phrase". For one thing, "Medz Yeghern" is not a "phrase". It is a proper name like "The Civil War".

Translating it as "Great Calamity" has recently become a powerful tool in the arsenal of historical revisionism about the Armenian Genocide, covering up the fact that the Armenians who survived it were very clear about the criminal nature of what had just happened to them and therefore chose "Medz Yeghern" as the principal name, among many others, for designating it. Additionally, Meowy has not on his/her own presented any citations, good or bad, to back up his/her position. Meowy has only carped at the sources I have presented as non-sources--even dictionaries-- but has never seen fit to engage the points presented in them.

One final point: proper citation for the translation "Great Calamity" is long overdue if mere dogmatism is not to be the order of the day at Wikipedia. Diranakir (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You just do not seem to get it - even though it has been repeated to you again and again and again! A dictionary is not a suitable source. Using a dictionary, you have been cherrypicking the meaning of one word then cherrypicking the meaning of a second word, and then joining them together to translate a pre-existing phrase so that it fit your pov. That is called original research. You have presented NO SOURCES that render the phrase "Meds Yeghern" as "Great Crime". You have provided not one source for your "Great Crime" in over two years of edit warring about it! There IS a citation for "Great calamity". I found many, but I simply chose the most recent. If required, I could provide dozens of different ones. However, I am no more willing to pander to you than I am willing to pander to some genocide denalist who comes demanding dozens of sources before he accepts the word "genocide" is the standard description of the events. Meowy 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy, the following are a couple of quotes from your comments:

1. The "Great Calamity" translation . . . . is supported by hundreds of sources. 7 May 2012

2. There is a citation for "Great calamity". I found many, but I simply chose the most recent. If required, I could provide dozens of different ones - 14 May 2012

My question: I don't find a single citation in your comments of any of the hundreds of sources you indicate exist. Please tell me by date where you have cited them in this discussion and what they are. Diranakir (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have now added a citation, but an incomplete one (we need to know the actual issue of Armenian Reporter you are citing). I will also find some ten or more different citations for "Great Calamity". After this, unless you provide more sources for "Great Crime" (and they have to be examples of it being used by different people) I will remove "Great Crime" because it will be a case of undue weight. Meowy 20:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: I have sufficiently identified the source. This is more of your discounting sources you can't handle. After saying you had cited sources in our discussion on the talk page (which you had not and still have not), you abandoned the discussion to surreptitiously add a citation to the term you favor (Calamity) on the article page. This because you could not discuss things rationally and convincingly on the Talk page. This approach is totally counter to the purpose of the Talk page, which is to prevent edit warring. But you are constantly reminding me that an edit war is what you want. I will vigorously defend the rightful place of the term "Great Crime" in the article whatever you choose to do. After providing no sources at all in our Talk page discussion, you are in absolutely no position to demand more sources from me. Diranakir (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are now refusing to give a correct citation for your source (author, year of publication, and issue number are missing) I have to assume there is something wrong with the source. As it stands now, it is not sufficient to justify the "Great Crime" content. Meowy 02:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A recap of some key points in my discussion with Meowy thus far:

1. "Original Meaning"

On May 4 Meowy twice referred to an original meaning of the term "Medz Yeghern" (which he/she was presumably aware of) and blamed me for altering it with "Great Crime". On May 5th I asked Meowy where he/she found that original. I have still not received an answer. The "original meaning" argument and the "modern vs. old meanings" is a complete myth and Meowy has not even lifted a finger to substantiate it.

2. "Dictionaries Are Not Sources"

When we are talking about the correct translation of a word in a foreign language, dictionaries are most definitely sources, otherwise there is no objectivity. And the argument that "yeghern" changes meaning when preceded by "medz" (great, large, big in Armenian) is an absurdity. If anything, its essential meaning is magnified.

3. Concerning the "Open Letter" of Docteur Claude Atamian cited by me on May 7

On May 11 Meowy dismisses the "Open Letter" as worth no more than "my own opinion", thereby absolving him/herself of any obligation to respond to the points made . I hereby cite the particulars of its publication in "Nouvelles D'Arménie Magazine" [NAM] , a publication at least as important as the one he/she cites in footnote #5 on the article page. It was published in NAM on Sunday, May 31, 2009.

4. On the necessity of "euphemistic and non-specific" terms:

On May 7 Meowy advances his/her psychological theory explaining the use of "calamity", basing it on a psychological need to soften the pain of a catastrophic event. When we are talking about genocide, it is extremely out of place to be justifying euphemism. Is that really what Meowy is after or the truth? The reason "Medz Yeghern" became the leading term for the Armenian Genocide among Armenians is because it is much more specific than "Aghed", which is another name for the Genocide and the proper Armenian term for "calamity". Meowy is here suggesting that the Armenians wanted to fool around and hide the truth from themselves! This is an affront to their dignity and intelligence.

What is clear is that Meowy is very wedded to neutralizing the true meaning of "yeghern". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What is very clear is that you are here only to pov edit war. You had better start to find more sources (one source containing an anonymous individual's passing opinion is not sufficient). Meowy 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note: Meowy has still not answered any of my questions but continues instead to bluster and issue threats. Apparently, anything that contradicts Meowy's position on the meaning of "yeghern"--even something published in a major French-Armenian publication, running 8,000 words, with 5 footnotes, 8 attached documents--is a "passing opinion". Diranakir (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Publication in NAM of Docteur Claude Atamian's "Lettre Ouverte" http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=52134 Diranakir (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

                           MORE SOURCES FOR "GREAT CRIME"

Citation A.

From "The Word Yeghern and the Semantic Field of its Equivalence in English" by Seda Gasparyan - Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor Armenological Researches Institute of YSU, Armenian Folia Anglistika. International Journal of English Studies. No1-2 (7), Yerevan, Lusakn Publishers, 2010, pp. 138-148, (in English:

Quote 1. "A study of the data presented in Armenian-English dictionaries provides the following explanations of the word yeghern (եղեռն): crime (ոճիր), misdemeanor (չար ընթացք, վատաբարոյություն), offence (անարգանք), rascality (ստորություն, անըզգամություն), slaughter (սպանդ, նախճիր, կոտորած, ջարդ), carnage (նախճիր), massacre (կոտորած, ջարդ) and genocide (ցեղասպանություն)."

Quote 2. "A. Sukiasyan suggests a whole range of synonyms in his “Monolingual Dictionary of Armenian Synonyms”: ոճիր /crime/, ոճրագործություն /felony/, եղեռնագործություն /villainy, crime/, չարագործություն (մարդասպանություն) /malefaction, murder/, ծանր հանցագործություն /grave, serious crime/, սպանություն /killing, murder, homicide/, կոտորած /massacre/, ջարդ /mass killing, massacre/, նախճիր /carnage/, սպանդ /slaughter/, արյուն/ա/հեղություն /blood-shed, carnage, massacre/, սրածություն /massacre, butchery, slaughter/, յաթաղան /killing with a Turkish dagger/, խողխողում /killing cruelly, butchery, slaughter/, եղեռնություն/հնց./ /harm, malice, rascality/, ցեղասպանություն /genocide/. These are not absolute synonyms, of course, but they all have the semantic constituent to kill (i.e. to commit a crime) in their semantic structure.7

Quote 3. "The word calamity (աղետ) used in this context may be characterized as a lexical unit with an extremely general and non-differentiated semantic meaning. From a study of the wide array of synonyms of calamity in dictionaries of English synonyms18 (1. trouble, distress, misfortune, misery, unhappiness, affliction; referring to an instance of what is calamitous: trouble, misfortune, misery, distress, disaster /implying unforeseen and adverse forces/, catastrophe /with implications of finality/, blow, scourge /implies severe and continued calamity/; curse/spec./ fatality) the following conclusion may be drawn: although any tragedy or evil, including wars, massacres and devastations may be termed a disaster in the broadest sense, the word calamity appears unable to convey the global meaning of the Armenian Genocide in all its manifestations."

Comment: In answer to the ultimate question of the article, i. e. what is the adequate English equivalent of yeghern, Professor Gasparyan concludes with a diagram. It shows an arc of 11 crimes ranging from left to right, each pointing directly down to the word "yeghern/genocide" at the center. The five terms on the left are: "destruction of language (crime), carnage (crime), massacre, mass killing (crime), vicimization (crime), forced relocation of children and grown ups (crime)". The five terms on the right are: "ethnic cleansing (crime), race murder (crime), slaughter (crime), racial extermination (crime), destruction of religion, culture (crime)". These ten crimes are divided in the middle by the term "annihilation of a race (crime)" and this points directly down to the central word "yeghern/genocide".This shows very clearly that translating yeghern as "calamity" is a serious misrepresentation of its meaning. This is why "Great Crime" is the best translation that Wikipedia can offer the reading public.

Citation B.

Source: "Armenian Foreign Policy Between Russia, Iran And U. S " [article] published in "Eurasia Review" on March 26, 2010. Author: Mikayel Zolyan, Yerevan.

About the author: Mikayel Zolyan is assistant professor at Yerevan State Linguistic University. He received his Ph. D. in history from Yerevan State University and has studied at the Nationalism Studies program of Central European University in Budapest.

Quotation from the article: 'During the latest election campaign, Barak Obama issued several strong statements advocating the need to recognize and condemn the genocide officially. Although it can be argued that Obama has come closer to fulfilling his promise than most of his predecessors – in his April 24, 2009, address to the Armenian community, he announced that his views on the issue are on the record and have not changed and used the Armenian term Eghern (literally – “a great crime, a man-made catastrophe"].'

Citation C.

A quotation follows from the European Armenian Federation for Justice & Democracy. The European Armenian Federation is a Non Governmental Organisation representing the European citizens of Armenian origin at the European institutions. The Federation was founded in 2000 in Brussels, is the well known interlocutor within the institutions of the European Union, as well as the Council of Europe. As noted in its mandate, the Federation expresses European Armenians’ political views, explained in a Charter, which is the attachment to the European values regarding the Human and socio- cultural rights.

The European Armenian Federation’s actions touch on several European policy areas, especially in its external relations with theSouth Caucasus (including Armenia) and Turkey.

Regarding the latter, the Union’s main problem obviously remains the State denial of the Armenian Genocide and the perpetuation of the occupation of Western Armenia.

The quotation is from the article "Armenian Genocide: Obama Broke His Pledge", dated 28 April 2009:

As expected, the U.S. President, Barack Obama made a statement about the Armenian Genocide, this Friday 24 April, the commemoration day of the Genocide. Terming the Genocide as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century,” the U.S. President declared that “The Meds Yeghern [Great Crime in Armenian] must live on in our memories. . . . ”

See: http://eafjd.eu/spip.php?article539

Citation D.

From "Armenian Weekly", May 1, 2012, "Legislators Mark Genocide in Senate, House Floor Statements" [article]. Statement quoted from Rep. Anna Eshoo: " Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate a solemn occasion of deep personal significance. Today marks 97 years since the infamous episode in which the Ottoman Empire began rounding up and murdering Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. By 1923, some 1.5 million Armenian women, children, and men were dead from a systematic campaign we now know as the Armenian Genocide, or Great Crime."

Rep. Eshoo's full speech can be found at:

http://capitolwords.org/date/2012/04/24/E631-2_commemorating-the-97th-anniversary-of-the-armenian/ dated April 24th, 2012.

Diranakir (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me say that, personally, I think your aims are obnoxious. You (and those whose works you cite) are propagandists who seek to exploit for their vain and selfish reasons the deaths of some two million people - and are so shameless that you try to alter even the wording the survivors used to define the disaster that fell upon them. Just because some Armenian nationalists have, over the last few years (no source you have cited is older than 2009), been engaged in producing their "Great Crime" propaganda campaign does not mean that this very recently-coined distorted meaning can enter the article (any more that the words "so-called" can enter it because some Turkish nationalists use that wording). Meowy 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Google search results:

"Medz Yeghern" 131,000 hits

"Medz Yeghern" genocide 13,000 hits

"Medz Yeghern" "Great Calamity" -"Great Crime" 2650 hits

"Medz Yeghern" "Great Crime" -"Great Calamity" 694 hits

"Medz Yeghern" + "Great Calamity" + "Great Crime" 148 hits (these are almost all arguments about whether "Great Crime" should be used instead of "Great Calamity").

So, usage of "Great Calamity" is almost 4 times more common than "Great Crime", and about 15% of all usage of "Great Crime" is in the context of an argument about whether "Great Crime" should be use instead of "Great Calamity". The most interesting aspect perhaps is the huge number of usages of "Medz Yeghern" without any translation into English, and the relatively small number of usages where it is accompanied by "genocide". This suggests that most readers and users of "Medz Yeghern" do not think an explanation of what it means in necessary, and are using it as an alternative to the word genocide. Meowy 20:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Google results above, I'm starting to believe that the best solution, given that "Medz Yeghern" almost never appears alongside an English phrase that claims to be a translation of it, ond only very rarely appears alongside the word "genocide", is to say "in English, usually rendered as 'great clamity'". Meowy 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Words matter. Linguists count. This is not a popularity contest. Read the entire article: http://www.armin.am/images/menus/496/GASPARYAN-Eng..pdf Diranakir (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a shoddy piece of work! She never once even examines the origin of the phrase's use - when was Medz Yeghern first used in connection to the Armenian Genocide, and where was it first used. And of course the date of its production, 2010, backs up my assertion that this "great crime" translation is a modern invention created for propaganda use. Meowy 16:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming That The Impossible Happened

Extended content

TO GAZIFICATOR: Regarding your post today at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 you have just made a grave mistake. You posted a forgery of an edit that I did not do on the date and at the time indicated. My edit today was on section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908", the last paragraph. This reflects very badly on your judgement and constitutes an unethical attempt to impeach my credentials as an editor. I did not touch line 37 in my last edit. Please take note. Diranakir (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I am a volunteer clerk/mediator at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. What Diranakir is claiming did not and can not happen. It is not possible for someone to modify a diff while leaving your name on it. (Admins can delete, nobody can modify.) This was explained to Diranakir in great detail by two different mediators at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Armenian Genocide, but Diranakir refuses to accept the facts. Diranakir's continued false accusations against Gazifikator after being informed that they are impossible are bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC) It can happen if my account is compromised. I repeat that I did not touch any part of the text except line #89. This is as clear as I'm sitting here. You can draw your own conclusions and take whatever action you want. Diranakir (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If your account is compromised it must be blocked immediately until such time as you prove that you regained control of it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) No need. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Try it yourself. You, of course, have the password to your own account, right? Pretend you are someone else and try to change a single character in your edit history. You can't, can you? It's not possible. Diranakir is claiming that something that is impossible happened. He might as well accuse Gazifikator of flapping his arms and flying to the moon. This has been explained to Diranakir several times by at least three administrators and mediators. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I changed my password today. What else needs to be done to prove it is in control? Diranakir (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC) You just did, by posting the above. And if someone had gotten your password, they don't have it any longer. (The "proving" step is for situations where someone else changes the password, locks you out, and claims that you are the imposter.). This does not change the fact that someone who had your password still could not edit your posting history. Because you cannot edit your history, someone pretending to be you cannot edit your history either. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 is a true and accurate record of your edit in "before/after" format. Nobody changed it. Nobody can change it. Not you, not Gazifikator, not an Administrator, not even Jimbo Wales. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC) There is a difference between what you say and what other editors say. You say it is impossible, they say it is only possible if someone compromised my account. This means it is possible. Which is it? I'd love to know. In the mean time: I did not revise anything except line 89. I did not even get close to anything else. I simply put in my 2 sentence revision, saved, and got out. The idea that I made several other edits in different places, let alone an edit to the first paragraph which has been hotly contested up to now, is pure fiction. I don't know how it happened but it happened. You can interpret my position any way you want. I will not change it. Draw your conclusions and take whatever action you choose. Diranakir (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) After I read more details and Guy's comments I am certain now that what you are saying is impossible. It is however possible that you made the edit but you do not remember all the details. Things happen. When people are tired, absent-minded, etc. they do things they can't recall later. It happens all the time. So I believe you mean it when you say you didn't do it. One thing that you must not continue doing however is keep accusing Gazifikator for doing it. That's flat-out wrong. So please don't keep repeating it. As far as I can see this is the only thing that can get you in trouble. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Re "You say it is impossible, they say it is only possible if someone compromised my account. This means it is possible. Which is it?", the answer is that Diranakir has a bad case of confirmation bias. Wikipedia has an excellent article on it at Confirmation bias. The reality is that not a single person on earth other than Diranakir himself has ever said that it is possible. He just thinks they did. They have all told him that if [something other than what Diranakir claims - see below] happened, then Diranakir needs to change his password. The reason they said that was that Diranakir has, at times, been less than clear as to exactly what he was claiming. For the benefit of anyone who wants the technical details, I am going to explain that [something other than what Diranakir claims] above. Lets say Diranakir decided that "secret" or "123456789" were nice passwords to have and someone else guessed the password. What can they do and what can't they do? They cannot alter Wikipedia history. As I have explained repeatedly, that cannot be done. Admins can change the visibility so that only admins can see it (this is done when someone posts an editor's home phone number, for example) but everything Diranakir (or an imposter) does on Wikipedia is permanently recorded, and cannot be altered or deleted. Which means that whatever the imposter does after compromising Diranakir's account is also recorded. The basic rule is that the imposter cannot do anything that the real person cannot do. The imposter can change the password, thus locking Diranakir out. Think about that for a minute. what happens if you complain to Wikipedia's admins and the imposter calls you a liar and says he is the original owner of the account? What happens if it was you who changed your password and someone else claims that you are the imposter? Who do the admins believe? All they can do is to ask each of you to try to prove you were the one who created the account. And they have to do it while protecting both party's privacy (yes, Wikipedia will protect your privacy after you impersonate another user, You might get banned, but you won't be outed.) I, on the other hand can prove my identity without anyone being able to dispute it, because it says this on my user page: {Committed identity: c0c5e71bca550e99a8ae6641e66c428e232051bade39cd47355634ff159c9475fffa1d12eee339aa401bfe5b31ff7fc352c2b9c6f002bfe82d03a6b3f9e40047 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity. (See Template:User committed identity for details.) Another thing an imposter who has your password can do is, of course, post things and make edits using your username. That's because Wikipedia has no way of knowing who you are -- Wikipedia only knows whether you have the correct password. Note that this is not what Diranakir is claiming. He is claiming that he made this edit and that line #89 of the edit is from him but the other 19 changes are from someone else, who with his magical psychic superpowers has somehow determined to be Gazifikator. Which is impossible. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC) On the date in question I made a 2 sentence edit that took about 2 minutes. I saved and got out. That is all I did on that date. I was well rested and very focused and thought I had made a good improvement in the article. I have made undiscussed edits in the past, but in my recent activity have resolved to follow guidelines more closely and discuss things beforehand. For that reason, I avoided the first paragraph like the plague since it has been and remains a subject of hot controversy. This is why I was totally shocked and blind-sided by the diff attributed to me, let alone by a number of other miscellaneous edits also attributed to me. If your final word is that such a phenomenon is impossible, this means you think I am mentally unstable. This has already been suggested by Guy Macon. If that's the consensus, then I have no more reason to remain part of the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I am not qualified to offer an opinion on your mental stability. All I can do is examine your behavior. You appear to be unwilling or unable to read and follow simple instructions, as evidenced by your continued failure to follow the "Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)" instruction which is at the top of every edit page. You do not follow indentation rules. And you keep insisting that the impossible is possible. You say that you made an edit at 15:50 on 3 June 2012 (UTC)[3] but that you only changed line 86, when the record clearly shows that you altered lines 6, 14, 37, 50, 61, 71, 79, 89, 96, 149, 167, 204, 218, 354, 486, 554, 576, 596, 612, 713, 718, and 730. You claim, against all evidence, that someone edited the diff, and it does not seem the least bit odd to you that all they did with this supernatural ability is things like changing "19th" to "nineteenth". You somehow decided that you know who did this magic, but you won't tell us how you know this. These are all easily observed behaviors. If you think these are indications of mental instability, I suggest that you see a mental-health professional. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I did not do any of the edits you ascribe to me in the series you cite except at line #89. To say I did is a complete falsehood. I cannot account for how the record you cite came into being. Is there some automated process whereby when making a change on one particular line and one particular line only that a whole set of other changes could be triggered without my going to those lines manually or being aware of them? I have no question about my mental stability and therefore find your suggestion highly offensive. As I said, if this is the consensus then Wikipedia is not the place for me. As for my signature errors, this seems a fairly common error at Wikipedia and results from my forgetting to log in first. I will admit to not being technically adept in the various operations. But no one is going to tell me I did edits I did not do. The rest is in your hands. Diranakir (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I am sorry that you were offended, but it was you who raised the question of mental stability. Again, I am not qualified to offer an opinion on your mental stability, but if you think you have a problem, see a mental-health professional. You having no questions about your mental stability is not very convincing evidence. You also have no questions about your claims that the impossible is possible. Obviously I am never going to convince you, so here are the rules that you are expected to follow. You are free to believe what you believe - there is no rule against claiming the the impossible is possible. You can vigorously disagree with my conclusions - I invited such criticisms by offering my professional opinion as an engineer and software developer. You can try to convince the developers of the Wiki software that they have a serious bug. The right place to do that is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There is one thing that you are not allowed to do. You must never again accuse Gazifikator of editing that diff. If you do that you will be warned, and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to have the last word. I am done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I think all of the above should be deleted from this talk page given that none of it is to do with article content discussion and this talk page is already getting full with on-topic things. It's pretty clear what must have happened: Diranakir must have mistakenly done his "To correct grammar and improve wording" edit on a previous version of the article and not on the one that was current at the time of his edit. Meowy 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I thought of that, and went looking for candidate versions so I could say, "look, you pulled up old version X on your screen, edited line 68, them saved the old version over the new." I could not find any evidence to support the theory. The claim really is impossible. Alas, past experience shows that Diranakir will now claim "Meowy said it was possible!" even though the claim clearly is not. In particular, look at line 14 of This diff, where InverseHypercube changed two spaces and a hyphen to a dash, This diff, where Diranakir changed it back to two spaces and a hyphen. I do agree that this is off topic, so I am collapsing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)