Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

1.5 million?

As a neutral reader I have a vital question. Is this amount of 1.5 million scientifically proven? Or are we reading propaganda? Why 1.5 million? Why is it not 5.000.000? Or 200.000? Or 600.000? Or 1.45 million? Or 2 million? All the sources merely contain statements, there is no source to a scientific research.

What is the methodology behind this 1.5 million? Are those the bodies coming out of graves? Are people who died a natural death included in this? Armenians who starved due to the lack of food which happened universally across the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and considering a similar percentage of Turks and Kurds died of starvage as well, are those included in this number of 1.5 million?

As a neutral reader I feel this article loses a lot of value because of the lack of proper methodology for the most important part of the article: the number of casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.32.124 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to help you in your perplexity as a neutral reader: scientifically speaking it could not have been 5 million because there weren't that many Armenians in Turkey at the time. Continuing our science, it was not 200,000 or 600,000 because Talat's "Black Book" shows nearly a million victims at just the half way point in the Genocide. Since the Genocide continued after World War I ended, 1.5 million victims is a conservative estimate. Most of the scientific methodology that bears on the subject was monopolized by the Ottoman government in systematically destroying the Armenian people and then covering over its tracks. Nevertheless, competent and honest scholars can see through that sort of thing. Diranakir (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Talat's "Black Book" is not about casualties. I have knowledge of Talat's "Black Book" and it is about the relocation of 924,158 Armenians and 702,905 Turks. If Talat's "Black Book" is a valid source, then according to that logic the Turks have commited a genocide on at least 700.000 Turks as well. I was actually talking about a methodology for the casualties of among for example those 924,158 Armenians, for the only proof Talat's "Black Book" provides is that they have been relocated, not that they have died, or have even been injured. And above all, if 1 million people died "half way" it does not provide a scientific fundament that 500.000 people die "the other half".

Furthermore, things like "scientific methodology that bears on the subject was monopolized by the Ottoman government" or "it's a conservative estimate" don't run in the scientific world, maybe at your high school it does. If the evidence is destroyed, then the evidence is destroyed and the number of victims is unknown. You can't just go around throwing numbers. I am not denying the genocide by the way, because you sound rather defensive, the genocide can also have happened with an unknown number of victims. My question is just, there is a number of 1.5 million, and not 1.45 or 1.55 million, what is the methodology for this exact number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.32.124 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another note about Talat's "Black Book". When calculating losses, it should be remembered that the difference between the population figures prior and after 1915 does not only indicate the number of those who lost their lives during relocation, but also includes those who chose to leave the country and go to Russia during combats [as Armenians deserted the Ottoman Army, changed sides under leadership of Karakin Pastermadjian (Armen Garo) and fought with Turks on the side of Russians. It should be noted that next to the people who have deserted to the Russian Army or have died in combat, 644.900 Armenians returned home after Moudros Armistice in 1918 as stated in US archival documents. This is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia page of Talat's "Black Book", the sources are available there. This means that Talat's "Black Book" leads to nowhere even NEAR the 1.5 million casualties that is claimed in this article.

Since it's a "conservative estimate", I'm sure that there are more reliable researches available for this number if it is so "conservative".--82.75.32.124 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm the guy up there, made an account. In this article itself is stated: "While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western scholars that over 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 600,000,[87] to 1,500,000 (per Western scholars,[88] Argentina,[89] and other states)." If the lowest consensus is 500,000 than the number of casualties should be 500,000 - 1.5 million. So why does it say "Deaths: 1.5 million" if there is not even a slight consensus over that number, and if even in the article itself different numbers are given? I think it will be much easier for the Turks to accept the genocide if there is a scientific foundation. But in this article so far there is none, especially for the number of 1.5 million, which is a vital element for the acceptation or denial of this issue. This article needs to be more based on science, so far it just seems a sum of statements, and that only works in the favor of the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Behzat, could you please stick to encyclopedic content and refrain from political statements like "that only works in the favor of the Turks". This is not a forum. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right! An article based on a sum of statements does not work in anyone's favor. Wikipedia is a major source for information for many people, it would be so nice if this article could come to a scientific level where it is undeniable.--Behzat (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for either a proper reply or an edit. The number 1.5 million is based on statements and not a research as far as it's clear in this article, and therefore it is wrong to present it as a fact. Even in the notes there is stated "however, estimates vary from 600,000 to 1,800,000", so it would be nice if the top could be adjusted as well. Furthermore, George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. And Bruce Wein mentioned in one of his articles that "the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000", so it goes as low as 300,000 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html). I have also repeatedly read in articles about estimates as high as 2,000,000. Therefore the politically correct range should be 300,000 - 2,000,000, but whether you'd like to be politically correct or politically biased is your own choice, the top should be edited, according to the present information in this article to 600,000 - 1,800,000, and politically correct to 300,000 to 2,000,000. --82.75.32.124 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The 600,000 figure stems from a report Toynbee drafted claiming that 600,000 Armenians died accounts only until 1916, which is merely the first year of the Armenian Genocide. This figure jives with initial reports of 500,000 dead in the first 5 months alone ([1][2][3][4]). By the end of the Armenian Genocide, those who attest to the death of 1.5 million Armenians do not include only the number of Ottoman Armenian citizens but Russian Armenian citizens as well since the Ottoman government took the willful steps of annihilating not only the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, but outside of its dominions as well (i.e. Russia, First Republic of Armenia, and etc.). German Military Plenipotentiary in the Ottoman Empire Otto von Lossow proclaimed that the "The Turks have embarked upon the total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia", "Talaat's government party wants to destroy all Armenians not only in Turkey, but also outside Turkey", and that "On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now."([5][6][7]) Even the international community reported massacres that were made outside of the dominions of the Ottoman empire in 1918 (see this New York Tribune article). In light of this, allies to the Ottoman Empire, such as German major Carl Franz Endres who served in the Turkish army, estimated the number of Ottoman Armenian deaths as 1.2 million, which excludes Russian Armenian deaths (Carl Franz Endres, Die Türkei. Munich, CH Beck, 1918, p. 161). The French ran their own investigative commissions after World War I and proclaimed the death of 1.5 million in 1919 ([8]). Most sources, if not all, attest to the death of at least a million Ottoman Armenian citizens. 1.5 million is the widely accepted figure, as already mentioned in the article. If we assess the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire in 1914 as 1.9 to 2 million, these numbers are fairly accurate with respects to the additional hundreds of thousands of Russian Armenians that were massacred as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, it is a proper one and I appreciate it, but still I see some flaws. First of all, all the "500,000 deaths" sources refer to news articles from the Allied side who were engaged in a world war against the Ottoman Empire, and more importantly, without a clear source (to for example a research). It is safe to assume that this is propaganda to influence the public opinion, especially considering none of the articles criticize the fact that the number 500,000 is unfounded. Just like news articles from the Nazi's are not reliable sources to criticize the Jews, news articles from the Allied side are (to me at least) not fully reliable to judge the actions of either the Germans or the Ottomans. I have not read the books you refer to, but I will read them and leave a reply here as soon as I see a chance to do so. And I know a lot of sources refer to 1.5 million, but a thousand years ago most sources said the earth was flat. What I am really interested in is where this number 1.5 million comes from, because as far as it seems to me it comes from a statement that is thrown in public by either a person or a news paper, and not a research. By the way, the news article of the French investigation is impossible to read because the file is really too small, do you perhaps have other sources for this article?

Furthermore, in 1912 the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was counted by the Armenian Patriarchate(!) as 1,018,000 ([9]). Nowhere in history has ever happened that such a large population doubled within 3 to 6 years. Was the census of the Armenian Patriarchate that lead to 1 million a lie or is the estimation of 1.9-2.0 million a lie? And that statements(!) claim Ottomans were interested in killing Armenians outside of their empire is interesting, but fortunately that was not within their power. The Russian political and military situation was far superior to that of the Ottomans in 1915-1918, without the Russian permission Talaat Pasha's army could not have operated within Russia. And as far as I know the Ottoman Army has never operated on Russian territory on the other side of the front, where they were losing battle after battle. So involving this sounds to me as ridiculous as blaming deaths within the United States on the Germans, the Germans simply had no power in the US just as Ottomans had no power within Russia. Perhaps these Russian Armenians died on the front with a weapon in their hands? I hope you understand that in that case they can not be counted in the amount of casualties of the genocide. How did Carl Franz Endres get to this number? Under what circumstances did he say this? During the war? Or afterwards when he was hoping for amnesty?

I am sorry for having so many questions and remarks, but as I said, a thousand years ago everybody on earth thought the earth was flat, I am seriously interested in the real situation with a solid undeniable foundation. --82.75.32.124 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You raise many points which I'll address one by one:

1. America wasn't engaged in World War I until 1917. So there should be no reason for a "propaganda war". As I have already said, this number can be easily verified with other sources including Toynbee's report. 500,000 is a relatively accurate figure for the first 5 months.
2. Renewed efforts of massacre actually started when Russian troops withdrew in 1917-8 with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918. With the withdrawal of Russian troops, the Ottoman army under the Army of Islam led by Vehip Pasha's Third Army invaded the former occupied Russian territory and reached the Armenian frontier where Turkish troops were just 25 km outside of Yerevan threatening to annihilate what was left of the Armenian nation. Meanwhile, reports of massacre were rampant as Turkish troops got rid of all those in their way. The United Nations estimates 100,000 died in the process ([10]). Allies to the Ottoman Empire, such as Otto von Lossow (as aforementioned), Ernst Paquin, Marshall Hindenberg, Foreign Minister of Germany Richard von Kuhlmann, Kress von Kressenstein, and others, make note of the obstinate attempts at annihilation through various methods including forced starvation, forced assimilation, and outright massacre. Even high-ranking members of the Turkish army, such as Halil Kut, proclaimed in the summer of 1918 in front of thousands of Armenians in Yerevan that "I have endeavored to wipe out the Armenian nation to the last individual"([11][12][13]) More importantly, Vehip Pasha, the main responsible figure of the invasion and liquidation of the Armenians in Eastern Armenia confessed during his testimony at the Trabzon trials that the massacres were systematically organized:[14]

"In summary, here are my convictions. The Armenian deportations were carried out in a manner entirely unbecoming to humanity, civilization, and government. The massacre and annihilation of the Armenians, and the looting and plunder of their properties were the result of the decision of the Central Committee of Ittihad and Terakki. The butchers of human beings, who operated in the command zone of the Third Army, were procured and engaged by Dr. Bahattin Şakir. The high ranking governmental officials did submit to his directives and order...He stopped by at all major centers where he orally transmitted his instructions to the party's local bodies and to the governmental authorities."

3. The Patriarchate statistics of 1912 is widely used by denialists to "combat" the 1.5 million figure. This figure is accurate but it doesn't provide a full assessment. For one: the census of the Patriarchate only assesses the number of Armenians living the six vilayets and excludes all others. Therefore, the Armenians of Adana, Adapazar, Edirne, Constantinople, Konya, Ankara, Bursa, Izmir, and other important locations of deportation are not taken into account. Let us not forget that these were also sizable Armenian communities. Ankara alone had an estimated 100,000 Armenians. Two: the 1912 census includes Armenians that only belong to the Apostolic Armenian Church and is based largely off of the death, birth, and baptismal records provided by the local Church in each district. Hence, the figure is low. On the other hand, the statistics of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1913-14 shows slightly more than 1,914,000. This second census is much more comprehensive as it was in preparation for the Armenian reform package and included Catholic, Protestant, and others alike.

4. The 1.5 million figure largely stems from German and Austro-Hungarian sources. The figure was mentioned by the Ottoman government during the Yozgat trial,([15]) and before the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal([16]), Toynbee states 1.2 million in 1917 ([17]), and Rafael de Nogales Méndez estimates 1.3 million. I can go on and on. But more importantly, would this change the basic truth that a genocidal massacre occurred in 1915-1923? Almost the entire Armenian population of Turkey was wiped out by its own government, the Turkish government. Does it really make the actions of Turkey better if they succeeded in killing only 600,000 Armenians and not 1.5 million? In any case, it was genocide. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor and historic Western Armenia (Eastern Turkey) had been expunged of its Armenian population. The destruction of the Armenian communities in this part of the world was total. As for this article, there is no reason not to believe that 1.5 million is the most widely used figure to assess the number of those killed. This figure, as provided above, is fairly accurate and verifiable with third-party contemporaneous reports, investigative committees, and censuses. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a waste of time addressing the points of a user [82.75.32.124] who does not leave a complete WP signature beneath his comments in accord with TP guidelines. If he thinks he has a more accurate figure for the victims of the Armenian Genocide let him simply state it with his supporting evidence, in the form: "So and so many Armenians were killed in the Armenian Genocide, no more nor less". Diranakir (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Diranakir I disagree. The status of his talk page has nothing to do with the validity of his statement. He brought up interesting points in relation to the number of people killed in the genocide. He makes a great point that the range of Armenians killed need to be adjusted. Also, he already states sources for the varying death tolls, so it is not like he is making up facts. My opinion is that the differences in death statistics should be discussed within the article. That would solve the official death toll headache. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: The article already has a note next to the 1.5 million figure that states: "1.5 million is the most accepted number, however, estimates vary from 600,000 to 1,800,000". There's also an entire section on "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" which further elaborates on this point. So how does this article not encompass a broad and varied assessment in terms of the number of those dead/killed and of those who have survived? Also, I suggest you (re)read my refutation of his claims above which the IP address hasn't even bothered responding to. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Étienne Dolet: The article mentions all the possible casualty tolls, perhaps in a different section, since this is a contested issue. That would solve the whole controversy. Precedence exists in the Joseph Stalin article in which an entire section is devoted to the number of Stalin's victims. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: There's an entire section devoted in this article as well. The "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" section assesses the pre-War population of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the casualties of the Armenian during the Genocide. This includes statistics and assessments from various contemporary academics, both denalist and non-denialists alike. The section is also coupled with contemporaneous reports and assessments of causalities of the Armenian population. If that's not enough, there's an entire article devoted to Ottoman Armenian casualties. I don't really see any reason why we should debate over this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lets just get to a consensus on what statistic we use. Thats all I'm asking for. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: You may disagree all you want, but the fact remains that it is a violation of the TP guidelines to leave comments unsigned, which user 82.75.32.124 has done at least 9 times in a row so far. In fact his "signature" has by now become the absence of a signature. You may think it is a good idea to respond to his wide-ranging and often flippant comments because you find something "great" or "interestiing" in them (for instance, his reference to "flat earth" beliefs a thousand years ago, or his saying "if the evidence has been destroyed, it has been destroyed") but responding to such anonymous comments only throws the gate wide open to all kinds of irresponsible users to do the same. For this very reason, I am quite perplexed about the special invitation for comment posted above, which seems based largely on your favored user's anonymous comments. If you think the guideline for signing posts is superfluous then maybe you should make a formal request to eliminate it. But I would like to know a little more about the user you defend and see the quality of his other contributions (if he has any) to get a better understanding of the quality of his thought and methods. I will now ask you to state in your own words what number of Armenians you think were killed in the Armenian Genocide and whether that number can be taken as a "fact" (which has been made much of above) or an estimate. In other words my question to you: What would the figure look like after your "adjustments" you are made?

@PointsofNoReturn: You may disagree all you want, but the fact remains that it is a violation of the TP guidelines to leave comments unsigned, which user 82.75.32.124 has done at least 9 times in a row so far. In fact his "signature" has by now become the absence of a signature. You may think it is a good idea to respond to his wide-ranging and often flippant comments because you find something "great" or "interestiing" in them (for instance, his reference to "flat earth" beliefs a thousand years ago, or his saying "if the evidence has been destroyed, it has been destroyed") but responding to such anonymous comments only throws the gate wide open to all kinds of irresponsible users to do the same. For this very reason, I am quite perplexed about the special invitation for comment posted above, which seems based largely on your favored user's anonymous comments. If you think the guideline for signing posts is superfluous then maybe you should make a formal request to eliminate it. But I would like to know a little more about the user you defend and see the quality of his other contributions (if he has any) to get a better understanding of the quality of his thought and methods. I will now ask you to state in your own words what number of Armenians you think were killed in the Armenian Genocide and whether that number can be taken as a "fact" (which has been made much of above) or an estimate. In other words my question to you: What would the figure look like after your "adjustments" you are made? Diranakir (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Diranakir: First off, the ip user you are describing is a new user. How would he know what guidelines to follow in the beginning? Also, that is what the unsigned comment bot is for. You cannot just discount the content of his comment just because he is a new user. Do not bite the new user. As to your question on what statistic should be used, I am okay with whatever statistic is decided upon as long as there is a consensus on it. Personally, I would prefer to describe the death statistic controversy similar to the way it is in the article, only with the new information from the ip user condensed down into article section size. In other words, all I am saying is that we should just simply agree on a statistic and go with it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: "How would he know?" Simple, by reading and taking seriously the guidelines prominently displayed at the top of this page! You have still not directly answered my question. All your response makes clear is that you fully embrace the new user's doubts about the figures used in the article, while neither of you is specific about how many Armenians you think were killed in the Armenian Genocide or what "adjustment" should be made. You say you are okay with whatever statistic as long as there is consensus on it. Well, guess what: 1 to 1.5 million is the outcome of a long-standing consensus! How do you think it got there? Are you now asking for a whole new consensus, because you don't care for the one presently reflected in the article? Diranakir (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Diranakir: I never said I was unhappy with the current statistic. I simply want a consensus. I don't really care what statistic is used as long as everyone agrees to use it. Also, I do not think new users would check the guidelines immediately. He also signed his last post so leave him alone. My only real problem is that you are biting the new user on a technicality. He signed his later posts, leave him alone. Use whatever statistic everyone agrees upon, I do not have an opinion on it. I only ask that you at least consider his objections instead of ignoring them because its a new user. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: As I said, 1 to 1.5 million is based on consensus. Therefore pleading for consensus is misplaced. I do expect that most new users would check the guidelines. I am not "biting a new user", which implies intimidating a naive newcomer. This new user seems to have a lot to say and the determination to say it and I have no power over him except my reasoning. I don't know what you mean when you say he signed his latest posts. I don't see where. Please clarify. On "considering" his objections, I would expect a man who has so many objections to have some idea of what the right figure would be. He should indicate that over a full signature. Otherwise all we have is a flotilla of objections leading to oblivion. Diranakir (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Diranakir: If that is the statistic everyone agrees on, I am all for it. Also, all you need to do is scroll up to find that he actually signed his later posts in this thread. You are intimidating the new user by lecturing him over signing his talk posts, which he already began to do on his own. Leave him alone. Also, the ip user actually provided sources in his later posts. Seeing that a section already exists regarding the exact death toll, I see no reason why we cannot simply incorporate some of the ip user's objections into that section. I do not see why we need to rigidly cling to one number. We could simply state that 1 to 1.5 million is the accepted number, but...(other estimates). However, perhaps that is best for the article on the death toll. Anyway, that is up to you guys. I'll check back later to see what everyone decided on, but I do not care what the decision is as long as everyone agrees on it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest to resolve this matter on Diranakir's Talk Page since the concerns you have mentioned have little to do with the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Issue already resolved. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues with refs

I am really happy over the recent copy-edits by various users over the content of the article. I hope this collective effort will bring about the GA status the article will hopefully attain. However, I find the refs the biggest concern here. They are really disorganized and not formatted correctly. It really pains me to see the article this way. If the article doesn't have a consistent format in terms of references, I don't think it'll pass FA. For example: see ref 64 and 65. These two refs refer to the page number right beside the citation number in the end of the sentence. While, on the other hand, ref 101 has the page number in the reference itself. So we need to make a very wise decision as to which format should we use if we want to get this past FA. I can assure you, once the inconsistencies with the references is solved, the FA process will be smooth-sailing. @Diranakir: Armen Ohanian (talk · contribs): thoughts? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The references are really messy, to put it mildly. I believe that the best and faster way would be to unify the references to the author-title-place-editorial-year-page format, which I have seen used in many places (e.g. Vahakn Dadrian, History of the Armenian Genocide, London-Providence, Berghahn Books, 1995, p. 270), without the ridiculous page number in the reference or any other thing that requires additional formatting.

To Dolet and Ohanian: I think Ohanian's suggestion is clearly the best solution to the messy references problem. Another matter: Talaat vs. Talat. The article is peppered with both, a serious flaw. WP seems to prefer "Talaat". The spelling should be consistent throughout. Your ideas on that. Diranakir (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have to do what WP has chosen. So I guess changing all that Talat's in Talaat's would be a primary choice. But we need to also check which name is more common in Google or something. We must investigate before making this big change. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for omitting to sign my post above. Re Talat vs. Talaat: Turkish Talat (with the caret) seems to indicate that the form with double "a" should be the primary choice (cf. the Armenian form "Taleat"). It appears that the form "Talat" is a simplification of the Turkish form by eliminating the caret (^).Armen Ohanian (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ohanian. I think we need look no further; it should be "Talaat". Diranakir (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME. Talaat Pasha appears to be much more common than Talat. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Then the question is how to do make the changes. Is there a "Change All" option, or must it be done instance by instance? Diranakir (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave that to me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Erzerum or Erzurum?

To Ohanian, Dolet, or others: Both spellings (as above) occur in the main article. This should be resolved in favor of one or the other. Also," Erzurum" is used in the title of the WP article on the city. My assumption has always been that it is "Erzerum". Your thoughts and proposals. Thanks. Diranakir (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Erzurum" is the Turkish name of the city. "Erzerum" appears to be the Westernized transliteration used until the 1920s, which corresponds to the Armenian spelling Էրզրում. Armen Ohanian (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Erzurum. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To Ohanian & Dolet: Thanks for your input. I have made the changes. Diranakir (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian Genocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs copy edit, suggest GOCE.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referencing not IAW MOS.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Not all paragraphs and even some sections are uncited.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	quick failed, does not meet criterion 1a, 2a and 2b. Remaining criterion not fully assessed. Needs a thorough copy edit (suggest approach be made to the Guild of Copy Editors), citation system needs to reflect MOS, and in an article on this topic, all paragraphs must have at least one citation to a reliable source.

After 20-odd pages of archived talk and tens of thousands of edits here is the result - an article that is in such a dismally bad state that it fails so badly on the initial GA criteria hurdles that is not even worth assessing it on the other criteria attributes. Why is the article so bad? Is there is a serious problem with the editing skills or the goals of the editors who have worked on this article? Why were some editors deluded enough to think it was in a condition to get GA status when it was so obviously not? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield we could have it peer rewieved and create a task group ? kazekagetr 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is beyond help. In an ideal world, one fair-minded and honest and sincere and knowledgeable editor (if such a person can exist on Wikipedia without already being blocked for life) should try to rewrite it all from scratch, having some regard for the existing content but making that regard as minimal as possible. And all previous talk page discussions should be ignored during this rewrite. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some questionable things in here.

Things like: "It is unlawful to designate the Armenian assets as "abandoned goods" for the Armenians, the proprietors, did not abandon their properties voluntarily; they were forcibly, compulsorily removed from their domiciles and exiled. Now the government through its efforts is selling their goods ... If we are a constitutional regime functioning in accordance with constitutional law we can't do this. This is atrocious. Grab my arm, eject me from my village, then sell my goods and properties, such a thing can never be permissible. Neither the conscience of the Ottomans nor the law can allow it."

Don't seem NPOV and weren't in quotations in the article. I'm considering deleting this if nobody has any objections. There are also quite a few things I find questionable that I would like to change or delete all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.121.121 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't deleted reliably sourced material outright. This appears to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"a few things I find questionable that I would like to change or delete all together" - you and me also! Get rid of 50% of this article, maybe more ...and much of the remaining 50% is so badly written it is barely salvageable. But the task to mend it is enormous, and it seems pointless just to tinker with it. I could add the full source for the quote (page number, etc.), but why, when I think it should be gone from the article. If only it were possible to just delete everything and start from scratch. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Etiennedolet shhhh grown people are talking. I agree Tiptoethrutheminefield, this whole article seems pretty poorly written and breaks NPOV quite often, I think it would be best to re-write it.

Translation of Halil Pasha quote in section "5.7 Ottoman Empire and Turkey"

I think this translation could be a lot better. The original Turkish text just flows when I read it; the English seems somewhat whacky in comparison and harder to understand. (I assure you I'm fluent in English.) Someone who's fluent enough in (19th-20th century) Turkish to catch all nuance in the original text, and also skilled in English prose so they can write a suitable English equivalent, might want to take a jab at it. On the meanwhile please correct the spelling mistake "piece" to "peace", and change the word "luxury" to "comfort" or "tranquility" or so.

For the record, here's my attempt at a mostly literal translation without entirely butchering English (but it might still read awkwardly): "The Armenian nation who I tried to eliminate to its last member for trying to erase my homeland from history [as prisoners of (OR) by surrendering to] the enemy in the most horrible and painful days of my homeland; the Armenian nation who I today want to bring to peace and comfort since they take shelter in the generosity of the Turkish nation... If you remain loyal to the Turkish homeland I will do every good deed I can. If you once again attempt to betray the Turkish and the Turkish homeland by getting involved with certain senseless Komitadjis I will order my armies who surround your whole country and leave not a single Armenian to breathe on this earth; pull yourself together."

Some notes:

I end the first (compound) sentence in ellipsis (instead of a period) because it indeed lacks a verb; he's rather calling out to the Armenian nation with those two compounded sentences which I separated with a semicolon (as opposed to a comma in the original).

The part in brackets is very ambiguous to me in the original text and could be translated to either phrase in English (the phrase "esir olarak" can mean both "as a prisoner" and "by surrendering"). It also has the second ambiguity (not resolved in English by choosing either phrase) that is who the subject of the clause is (is it the Armenians who surrender or are imprisoned, or the Ottomans?), so there is four possible interpretations in total: have Armenians once intentionally surrendered themselves to enemy forces to disadvantage the Ottomans? Were they already imprisoned but then helped the enemy forces? Or have they just generally contributed to the surrender of the Ottomans, which led to a risk of them getting erased from history? Or did they do something while the Ottomans were already (figuratively) imprisoned by enemy nations and under threat of this "erasure from history"? Someone who knows the context of the text might be able to tell.

In "betray the Turkish" I use the word "Turkish" as an implicit plural/group/nation/culture; this is most close to the original text which just uses "Türk" without pluralization; it could have used the plural "Türkler" if it wanted to speak of "the Turks". (I also considered just writing "betray the Turk", but I think "betray the Turkish" is more fitting.)

In the last sentence, the word "country" is not to be misinterpreted to mean that they have a government. I don't know if there's a better alternative to the word "country" here; I considered "land" but that doesn't carry the implication of a nation being bound to that land, whereas the original uses the word "memleket" which is a bit more like "homeland". I chose not to use "homeland" because that was previously used as a translation for "vatan". When I think about it, perhaps the only difference between "vatan" and "memleket" is that the former sounds a bit more glorified, though.

And lastly, the last part is better translated as "pull yourself together" and not "make up your mind" because the Turkish phrase that is originally used literally translates to "put your mind back in your head" and does not imply there being any decision to make; not even sarcastically.

Translation is frickin' difficult! 2003:51:4A04:D063:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your work on the translation is appreciated - but I think it signifies that this quotation cannot be used in Wikipedia unless there is an acceptable English translation of it that appears in a published source. Your version cannot be used because it is original research. Nor can the current version because it too appears to be original research - and it is also, as you have revealed, inaccurate. For these reasons I propose that the passage is deleted from this article and also from the Halil Pasha article. Are there objections? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with removing the Halil Pasha quote entirely. The translation is based off of a reliable source. We cannot render the translations for direct quotes by Wikipedia users as reliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You claim "We cannot render the translations for direct quotes by Wikipedia users as reliable". Exactly! So you are actually supporting my deletion suggestion? The quote in the article is a translation by a Wikipedia user - it has no reference. Translations by Wikipedia users are OR, even setting aside the problem that translations by Wikipedia users cannot be guaranteed to be accurate, especially if they are translated from a long-dead language filled with obscure phrases and concepts like Ottoman Turkish. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote doesn't even have a date against it! When was it written? How can it claim to be be "contemporaneous" without this important information. I think that it is weak content like this that needs to be removed if this article is to even get close to GA status. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The original quote isn't really in "Ottoman Turkish", or if it is then Ottoman Turkish is closer to today's Turkish than I was aware. As a Turk born in the 90s I can understand the text just fine. I had to look up three words used in it: one ("ferd") I'd probably have known if I read a little more Turkish literature or even just if I didn't leave Turkey at age 16, the second I'm guessing is relatively obscure in modern Turkish ("âlicenaplık"), and the third is the term "komitacı" (komitadji) which seems to be a history-related term which I'd probably have known if I studied recent Turkish history better. 2003:51:4A35:4160:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, have you seen the Talat Paşa'nın Evrak-ı Metrukesi book by Murat Bardakçı. Has it got Ottoman Turkish original text, or has it been modernised. The article on the book is here Talat Pasha's Abandoned Documents but that location/name might change. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't set on being a GA anyways. I don't mind using this translation [18]:

"The Armenian folk that I tried to kill to the last person, since they tried to enslave a nation to the enemy in the most terrible and painful days of my country, the Armenian folk that I am offering peace, comfort since they take refuge of the Turkish nation’s high mind… If you stick together with the Turkish homeland, I would do whatever I can for your country but if you obey some group of unconscientious Armenians who would betray the Turks and their homeland again, I will give an order to the armies that are surrounding your country to not leave any Armenians still breathing on the earth. Be more reasonable."

Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, what I'm just going to do is delete it. If it is then put back I will raise the issue on one of the advice boards and I hope eventually get rid of it for good. This is because Halil Pasha's Memoirs have not been translated into English, there seems to be no published English translation (in a source we can use) of the original Ottoman Turkish quote, and we cannot have amateurish or ambiguous private translations in an article. Whatever the actual merit of the untranslated original (I think the original adds no value to the article, you think differently) we cannot ignore Wikipedia's rules on OR or verifiable sources or appropriate sources (I hope you were not seriously claiming as an appropriate source a propaganda website that I am certain has long been agreed as unusable on Wikipedia). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian Genocide

Has anyone here considered -- or, agree with -- merging the Armenian Genocide page along with the Greek and Assyrian genocide pages. After all, they were not three separate events, but rather, three different national histories. Renowned genocide scholar Hannibal Travis and even the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) refer to the events as a genocide of the Ottoman Empire's Christian population - Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian.

No, because nothing you just said is backed up by any reliable sources, they were separate events and only the Armenian Genocide has any real evidence of actually happening. But either way, there was no campaign against killing Christians during this time, Christians may have died, but not for their religion.

Please remember to sign your posts! Everything can be said to be connected to everything else in some way, but encyclopedias divide things up into smaller and smaller units to stop things becoming unworkable! Yes, there is a connection between the Armenian Genocide and the Greek and Assyrian genocides, and yes a major part of that connection is that they were Christian and were killed because of that. But these are separate subjects as far as specialist articles go, and the main specialist articles have numerous fork or ancillary articles as well - so what you suggest cannot happen. Instead, the mutual connections could be revealed through content, through wikilinks, and through the topics sections at the bottom of articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

another resource site link for the Armenian Genocide should be added. its 100% related and here are the details:

Site Name: GenoPosts.com URL: http://www.genoposts.com/

Sosarkissian 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

World War I

Just a heads up, I can't change this myself, because the article is protected, in the first paragraph (3rd line) the article states ″historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey during and after World War.″, Obviously it should say World War I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.102.221 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up! Diranakir (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Government

I think it is important to make clear that the Genocide of 1915 was brought about by the Imperial Government (Ottoman Empire) (Three Pashas government}. It is just a fact that is not included yet, but should be replaced with the much more complex article link of Ottoman Empire for any events after 1908, as the Ottoman Empire spans many centuries and this would be too much of a distraction for the reader to get immersed into; I replaced the links I found appropiate, please do this further if necessary. --92slim (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No reference to the highly significant report of the first prime minister of Armenia in the article

In a report entitled "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do", which discusses but is not limited to the subject and was addressed to his political party, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun or Dashnaktsutyun), Armenia's first prime minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni defines the events as one would define a war.

He criticizes the aspect of the Armenian side, stating that "We overestimated the ability of the Armenian people, its political and military power, and overvalued the extent and significance of the services our people rendered to the Russians. And by overestimating our very humble worth and merit we were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations."

He also states that "The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret it today. It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question." These statements are consistent with defining the events as war which included bilateral slaughters, but not genocide.

As a result, it may be concluded that it is obvious that many people lost their lives from both opposed sides. It can be more on one side and less on the other, depending on their military and political powers.

But to define the events as genocide is not fair; and highly reduces the credibility of wikipedia.

94.121.70.191 (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the creator of the present topic seems to know so much about Katchaznouni's thinking, I'd like to ask him what he thinks Katchaznouni meant by "It" in the sentence, "It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question". Diranakir (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That "it" may refer to any action that can take place in war; but it does not refer to "genocide". As I mentioned above, during this war, numerous upsetting events took place effecting both opposite sides; as it would be, and as it is, in any war. 94.121.66.31 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the word genocide.

94.121.66.31 (talk · contribs) Are you trying to be funny? The term "genocide" was invented in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin and therefore it was not used till then. Nevertheless, the systematic massacres and deportations of Armenians in 1915 fits perfectly into the definition of genocide. In fact, Lemkin used the Armenian Genocide as a reference and a primary example of this new word. You can watch the video I provided or just take a glance at "Raphael Lemkin's Dossier on the Armenian Genocide" (ISBN:0977715345) for more information.

So you really don't want to provide the definition of "it"? No worries, I can provide it for you. But out of curiosity, have you even read Khatchaznouni's report? You've picked out one sentence from the report and excluded all the ones referring to the mass extermination of the Armenians. Nice try buddy. Yet, even with such a bad translation by Mehmet Perinçek, a convicted criminal and a member of the ultra-nationalist Ergenekon organization, what Khatchaznouni said was clear:

The mass exiles, deportations, and massacres that took place during the summer and autumn of 1915 were fatal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia - the same half where the fundamentals of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy - that half was deprived of Armenians. In the Armenian provinces of Turkey there were no Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret it today. It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question.

Khatchaznouni continues to describe the intentions of the Turkish government to destroy and exterminate his Armenian population in the very same report:

The proof is, however – and this is crucial – that the struggle began decades ago against which the Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia.

This was the terrible fact.

Civilized humanity might very well be shaken with rage in the face of this horrifying crime. Statesmen might utter menacing words against criminal Turkey. “Blue”, “yellow”, “orange” books and papers might be published accusing them. Divine punishment against the criminals might be invoked in churches by clergymen of all denominations. The press of all countries might be filled with horrifying descriptions and details and the evidence of eye-witnesses...Let them say this or that, but the work was already done and words would not revive the corpses fallen in the Arabian deserts, restore the ruined hearths, repopulate the country now become desolate. The Turks knew what they ought to do and did it.

Khatchaznouni's report does not depict the Armenian Genocide as merely a war fought in between Armenians and Turksh. That's a huge mistake made by unprofessional Armenian Genocide denialists who are now embarrassed for even uttering such a claim. In fact, denialists don't even use this report anymore as an attempt of debunking the Armenian Genocide. They've been embarrassed way too many times. I suggest you don't try to continue or revive that mistake either. Simply because Khatchaznouni makes it clear that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was a "horrifying crime" which consisted of "mass exiles, deportations, and massacres" which ultimately resulted with the Turkish government bringing about "the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey." Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that he is trying to uphold Wikipedia's credibility, the initiator of the present topic is avoiding a legitimate discussion by ignoring the ordinary meaning of words and then hiding behind the results. "It was the most definite technique" does not equal "any action that can take place in war", or "numerous upsetting events". That is as clear as the nose on one's face. Diranakir (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for kind replies. I will be re-presenting my thoughts and opinions about the subjects that have been mentioned. But first, I have to inform you that I will expand this thread further later, as I do not have enough time for this right now. So, please keep in touch.

1 - My primary motivation to start this discussion is to point out that, a highly significant report of the first prime minister of Armenia is not -and should be- referred in the article, if it is intended to make the article comprehensive. About the report, I also would be happy to hear your opinions about why the report "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do", by the first prime minister of Armenia, had been removed from libraries and banned in Armenia.

2 - As for the "anachronism" claim about the term genocide; I do not think I have made any imply that the term genocide had already been coined in 1915 (to be more clear: in my initial message by saying ""but it does not refer to "genocide"", I mean it does not refer to "genocide" (one should not take he message that it means genocide)); which means I am not trying to be funny.

3 - I hope you are a little bit outdated in the Ergenekon; otherwise what you stated would be a pure intentional denigration. The Ergenekon trial -after over 6 years - is proven to be a coup against people who are -after all these years they were sentenced- declared as not guilty, including Mehmet Perincek. All so-called convicted persons are acquitted, by the verdict of the Constitutional Court (highest court) of Turkey. You can check out the list of illegality examples in Ergenekon trials. As a matter of fact, the famous prosecutor of the trial, Zekeriya Oz, and judges, president of the court Hasan Hüseyin Özese, and member judges Sedat Sami Haşıloğlu and Hüsnü Çalmuk are now being prosecuted; for the faults in the Ergenekon trials. They are believed to be connected to the Fethullah Gülen (so called religious) order.

4 - I refuse the term "denialist", since one can only deny a truth. One can not deny the ambiguous outcomes of a controversial discussion, however these can be agreed or disagreed.

5 - There are many former "denialists" of Armenian origin, but one of the last of them was Hrant Dink, an iconic person of the Armenian community in Turkey, the editor of the Agos magazine, who was murdered in 2007. He interpreted the 1915 events with courage, Hrant Dink. Dink claimed that the Kurds were now falling in for the traps that the Armenians fell in the past. He says in his last speech in Malatya Business Peoples Association: "English, Russian, German, and French are playing the same game again in this land. In the past, the Armenian people trusted them, thought they would rescue them from the cruelity of the Ottoman. But they were wrong, because they finished their business and they left. And they left brothers of this land as enemies". He claimed that the US is now playing the same game, and this time Kurds are falling for it. He said "That is America. Comes, minds its own business, and when he is done, leaves. And then people here, scuffle within themselves". Before you accuse the imaginary Ergenekon organisation, let me add that the chief of police in Trabzon, Ramazan Akyürek, who condoned the murder to happen, had officially been filed as being a member of the Fethullah Gülen so-called religious order.

6 - Raphael Lemkin may be an innovative person, and like any person, he may be wrong, or deceived, or ignorant. If he chose 1915 events as an example, I believe that was his mistake. Please check the European Council of Human Rights report mentioned in the above topic The controversy about the 1915 events may only be ended by an objective, unbiased and thorough study by a council of scientists, not by talented individuals. I believe one day, these studies will be made and the fact that the events were "carnage made by both sides and effecting both sides", but not an "unilateral genocide", will be revealed.

7 - Being ignorant is not as difficult as knowing. But pretending not to know is even harder. I hope our children will meet, and be "brothers" as Dink would say, in a world where blood group is more important than ethnical identities.

Best regards, 94.121.64.98 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1.) 94.121.66.31 (talk · contribs) Okay, this is becoming a comedy. Banned in Armenia? Who ever told you that? I know the Turkish lobby and Armenian Genocide deniers have been repeating that garbage for quite some time now. But it's another embarrassing claim. Kachaznouni's Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do is available in the National Library Armenia in several languages. The book has been republished several times in Armenia and is widely read. Have you even bothered looking for the book at the library catalog of the National Library of Armenia? If not, here's the link [19]. I've spotted at least a dozen copies of the book available in almost all branches of the National Library located throughout Armenia. So please, do yourself a favor and research this a little more before coming back here.

2.) How do you expect someone to use a certain word that hasn't even been invented yet? Regardless of what you may think, Kachaznouni stated that the "Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia." The extermination of a people due to their race (in this case Armenian) is by definition a genocide.

3.) I do follow the news. We can't just abruptly consider this guys work to be reliable just because he was acquitted from trial in Turkey. How reliable is Turkey's justice system anyways? The very fact that they had arrested this guy under suspicion for plotting an overthrow of an elected government to reinstate an ultra-nationalist order leaves me to believe that his research is politically motivated and therefore not reliable. Perinçek studied in Russia for 1.5 years and was assigned by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to conduct research. He was the mouthpiece of the Turkish government during those years and his research was politically motivated. Upon returning to his country, he spent two years in prison in his own country and was sentenced an additional six years in the summary judgement of the trial. He was fired from his academic duties at the University of Istanbul and had his doctoral thesis was revoked. His attempt at establishing an "academic" career turned out to be a disaster. Because of this, we as Wikipedia users cannot incorporate such rubbish into the project.

4.) When it comes to the Armenian Genocide, Turkey has lost the battle of truth. Your opinion is of a minority. Denialists, such as yourself, are slowly disappearing off the face of this earth. Although you have a right to your own opinion, your personal opinion shouldn't be a guiding force to edits on such articles as this. Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. If you continue to push such a minority position in articles related to the Armenian Genocide, you may face sanctions under WP:AE. Denialist literature, whether it be about the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues.

5.) The statement by Hrant Dink that you've provided doesn't make any sort of denialist claim. Hrant Dink never denied the Armenian Genocide. He just never dared to speak about it in public in Turkey. Considering that there were three court sentences against him and death threats being sent to him on a daily basis, that wouldn't be such a good idea. However, he was perfectly comfortable about using the word genocide when speaking in Armenian. For example, in this interview (1:34-2:10), Hrant Dink describes the moral impetus of Turks denying the Armenian Genocide. In this interview, Dink frequently uses the word genocide and scolds the Turkish academic community for teaching young children that Armenians killed Turks and that they deny genocide. Unfortunately, these are the only two interviews I found in Armenian but with English subtitles. There are many other interviews and speeches, such as this one, where he uses the word genocide frequently and expresses his admiration for genocide scholars like Vahakn Dadrian and Yves Tenon.

6.) Arguments of free speech and reports such as the one by the European Council of Human Rights do not disprove the Armenian Genocide. That's an entirely different topic of discussion. But in regards to Lemkin, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, Lemkin was far from wrong, deceived, or ignorant. He was a well-learned scholar who spent a whole lifetime researching the Armenian Genocide and has been a pioneer in that field of study ever since. His dossiers concerning the Armenian Genocide were a big breakthrough not only in the studies of the Armenian Genocide, but of all genocides. They've been recently republished by Michael Bayzler, a scholar who compiled an outstanding piece of work.

7.) I'm not "pretending" to know anything here. What I know or what you don't know won't change the fact that what happened in 1915 was a genocide.

This shall be my last response to you because it digresses from topics of discussion concerning the article itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM! If any credible sources give credence to Perincek and Perincek's bizarre interpretations then that should be the basis for any discussion over content addition. But no credible sources do - so end of discussion. Something as simple and basic as this should have been said at the very start, saving everyone a lot of time. And EtienneDolet - to descend to the level of mentioning Sandstein, really! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo

In "Hamidian massacres" text of the photo: "Armenian massacres in E..."?! May be you want to say: Killed Armenians in E...? or Massacred Armenians in E...? 96.247.108.45 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to make it clearer, though I don't think the old caption was that unclear. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Armenian Genocide

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Armenian Genocide's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "akcam":

• From Turkification: Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act. 2006, page 88.
• From Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide: Akcam, Taner (2007). A shameful act: the Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility (1st Holt pbk. ed.). New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Holt. ISBN 0-8050-8665-X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015

In reference to note 147, it is quoted a sentence from Ataturk saying

[...] the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule

While the actual statement from Ataturk was

These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule

As you can check in the document linked by the note itself. There is a big difference between the two as in the first case the subject seems to be the "Millions of Christians" while in fact it was the Young Turk Party.

I therefore request to quote the sentence in its whole integrity

http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/docs/Kemal%20Ataturk%20Admits%20Reality.pdf

46.107.74.116 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you. I've (hopefully) corrected it but haven't copied the quote in full, as the remainder of it seemed out of place. Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good catch, 46.107.74.116 Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad grammar.

"...systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland..." The word "exterminate" is not used with "from".

Mr Anon, I'd be more concerned with "from their historic homeland". It is a bit of a pov phrase anyway, but if it means the area of historical Armenia and of Armenian Cilicia, "historic homeland" excludes the parts of the Ottoman empire where most of its Armenian population lived and where most of the Armenian Genocide's victims came from. Such as Sivas. Kayseri, Diyarbekir, Silvan, Harput, Mezirfon, Samsun, Malatya, Ankara, Konya, etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

""historic homeland" excludes the parts of the Ottoman empire where most of its Armenian" No, it doesn't. As I referenced above, this is not a discussion forum. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does. Ankara was never part of historical Armenia, Sivas was never part of historical Armenia, Konya was never a part of historical Armenia, Malatya was never part of historical Armenia, etc., yet all suffered massacres of its Armenian populations. Nor can the Ottoman Empire taken as a whole be described as the "historic homeland" of Armenians. This phrase is one of the many examples of lazy inaccuracy in language and content found in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Malatya was not part""Sivas was not part" Alright Sir. Proven wrong again. From the article of Malatya:

It was a major center in Lesser Armenia (P'ok'r Hayk'), remaining so until the end of the fourth century A.D. Emperor Theodosius I divided the region into two provinces: First Armenia (Hayk'), with its capital at Sebasteia (modern Sivas); and Second Armenia, with its capital at Melitene.

--92slim (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing the geographical term "Armenia" as used by the Roman Empire with the area actually lived in by Armenians. Consult suitable sources and you will find they say the majority population of "lesser Armenia", or its administrative subsections 1st / 2md / 3rd / 4th Armenia, was not actually Armenian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

92slim needs reminding that Wikipedia is not a source and that quoting unreferenced content taken from Wikipedia articles is not something that gains respect in a discussion. The amount of Armenia-related crap and misinformation on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Time to fact tag the unreferenced stuff in those articles with a view to eventually deleting some of the rubbish. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice personal attacks. So you claim that Roman Armenia was not Armenia, and there were no Armenians there, because Roman sources are not suitable. Yawn. --92slim (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. There were a variety of Roman and Byzantine provinces with the name Armenia in them - that word "Armenia" is a geographical term, not an ethnic term. Your understanding seems at the same level as that of the ignorant Turkish nationalists who ban maps with the names of Roman provinces on them because they think they are irredentist Armenian propaganda (see p86 in Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"that word "Armenia" is a geographical term, not an ethnic term" Wrong. Come again. I am truly waiting to see the oncoming explanation for your claim that the Armenians are not Armenians. --92slim (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

But a literate person stops reading when the author displays illiteracy. Would you say, "John Doe was killed from his city"? You can say "banished from", "expelled from", "ejected from", but you can't say "killed from", "murdered from", "exterminated from". I have no interest in the content of a phrase embedded in sentence with a glaring grammatical mistake. When the sentence is made readable, then I might care about what it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Definition of the word genocide"

Strangely, the section with the title "Definition of the word genocide" does not contain a definition of the word "genocide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2024

I can't think of a good reason why the article should contain such a section anyway - this isn't a dictionary, and even it was, the definition would go in the genocide article, not here. And renaming the section 'origins of the word genocide' doesn't particularly solve the problem. Clearly there is a debate as to whether the events described in the article meet specific definitions of 'genocide' - maybe the section title should be 'applicability of the term genocide', though even that doesn't really fit what the section is discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly there is a debate as to whether the events described in the article meet specific definitions of 'genocide'" - Ok, from the beginning. A Polish man named Raphael Lemkin invented a word called genocide. He claims he invented it to describe what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in a live television interview. Please, read the section - you'll understand the futility of arguing here. --92slim (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: and AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) I appreciate your good faith efforts in improving this article. Personally, I think this article needs to be shortened. I'm fine with trimming that section the IP talks about here. After all, we don't need a a 1000+ word section on just a word. Much of that information can be merged into the Genocide article. Also, I'd rather delete paragraphs from that section and add more on the section pertaining to Witnesses. That's much important into the study in this particular genocide, rather than a investigation into the origin of the word genocide itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to say that I am myself to blame for expanding this article. But my expansion was to something I think is very important, especially in recent Armenian Genocide scholarship: the witnesses and testimonies of Turkish politicians and public figures. That section was really small, it needed serious expansion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a point in your argument, in that this particular section (about the actual word) has too many unrelated details. I support the trimming as well. --92slim (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the word genocide.

I'm going to begin the trimming process. You're welcome to trim as well, or provide any additional input. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)\

@92slim: and @AndyTheGrump:...should we add this video to that section? What you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @EtienneDolet:. I support adding the video, as the section was neither clear nor concise. The information needs to be shortened and clear to the reader. --92slim (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, there is far far too much in the article already. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by there is far far too much in the article already? --92slim (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We're in the process of trimming it down so I don't think that'll be a problem, at least not so much of a problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Neurath

I removed the paragraph concerning Konstantin von Neurath and was summarily reverted by 92slim (talk · contribs) without a real explanation, so I'm starting a discussion here. I had two reasons for this edit, and I mentioned these in the summary:

1. The paragraph, as written, is almost word-for-word from the Independent story it referenced [20]. If nothing else, it needs to be substantially written because it's a copyright violation.
2. The referenced story does not actually place Neurath at the massacres. It simply notes that Neurath was attached to the Turkish 4th Army during the massacres with a monitoring role, and that Neurath later held high office in the Third Reich.

This paragraph argues by insinuation, as does the story. Neurath, while convinced of war crimes at Nuremburg, isn't considered a major figure in the Holocaust. He's not a major figure in the linked story, especially as none of the Germans in the photograph have been identified. Rudolf Hoess, who is a major figure in the Holocaust, is also mentioned but only that he served in Turkey in 1916. The article doesn't say in what capacity. There's not much to go on. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mackensen (talk · contribs) I had edited Neurath out of the section. The paragraph that I edited stated that German officials commited massacres. It's not insinuation; it's written by Robert Fisk. Please, read before making an unjustified removal of information. --92slim (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should go. As well as having undue weight issues, it is mostly a weasily-worded insinuation used as a substitution for presenting actual facts. Robert Fisk, regardless of his many good points, has a bad habit of doing this - writing about one thing simply as an excuse to attack a different thing, with generally that different thing being one of his personal bugbears. It is lazy and unprofessional writing, imho. Just because it is Fisk's opinion does not make it fit for inclusion into this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"It is lazy and unprofessional writing" - I am not sure if that forwards your argument. Specially when talking about Robert Fisk. --92slim (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying it is not an insinuation when written by Robert Fisk does not advance your argument by much either. I have read the article and it is full of weasily-worded insinuations. The weasily-worded insinuation that some random unnamed soldiers photographed standing bedside some skulls are "just like those pictures the Nazis took of their soldiers posing before Jewish Holocaust victims a quarter of a century later" because some of them are Germans (or rather, might be Germans). The weasily-worded insinuation that because some of them are German this means that Germans participated in the mass killing of Armenians in 1915. The weasily-worded fake "Did the Germans participate in the mass killing of Christian Armenians in 1915?" question posed to readers, when Fisk's predetermined agenda already makes that question answered, regardless of the lack of evidence, regardless of even his own "Germans have been largely absolved of crimes against humanity" statement. And they are "Christian Armenians". Did the "non Christian Armenians" live happily ever after? Fisk goes on to mention Russian archives, and Russian photographs, neatly avoiding mentioning that those photographs are full of Russian soldiers standing next to the skulls of dead Armenians since they too must be "atrocity snapshots" according to his definition. And then he weasily cherry-picks out three names name from the roll of the tens of thousands of German soldiers who served in the territory of the Ottoman Empire because those 3 became notable for their criminal actions in WW2. The connection between that and the Armenian Genocide is never explained. He never makes any actual allegations - it is all just vague insinuation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"regardless of the lack of evidence" There is no lack of evidence. Sorry. "neatly avoiding mentioning that those photographs are full of Russian soldiers standing next to the skulls of dead Armenians" What are you talking about? This is not a discussion forum. There are blogs for that, perhaps. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear you know little about the subject. But even an ignorant person might think to go to the website of the organization mention in Fisk's article to see the photos and newspapers Fisk talks about, and notice that they are full of Russians standing next to the remains of the genocide victims they have come across during their advance against the Ottoman armies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. We are not here to send each other personal attacks on stupidity. Also, provide sources for your unfounded claims. --92slim (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one making the claims that are in the article. What evidence do you extract from Fisk's piece to support the claim that states Germans participated in the mass killing"? So what if some of those who were part of German forces operating inside the Ottoman empire during WW1 also participated in Nazi German forces during WW2? That is pointless and off-topic for this article. And please indent your posts in relation to what is above them if you are replying to what is above them - it is used to indicate which post you are replying to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Хаченци (talk · contribs) has restored the contested section concerning Neurath; I don't see any consensus here to do that and, again, it's essentially a copyright violation as written. Furthermore, as I said above, it's argument by insinuation (by Fisk). The fact presented in Fisk's article is a photograph which shows German army officers at the site of a massacre. He acknowledges that we don't know who they are, not even what unit they were attached to. This photograph has nothing to do with Neurath, or Hoess, or anyone else. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fisk's account of Neurath's involvement is also difficult to square with Isabel V. Hull's account in Absolute Destruction, which depicts him as a fairly minor diplomat and not complicit in genocide (see [21]). It's been years since I read Hull but I recall it being quite negative toward the Imperial German military establishment and it's already referenced once in this article. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement about Neurath does not say he was guilty of Armenian or Jewish holocausts, it simply says he "played a role in the Nazi regime", which is obviously true. Neurath (together with Schulenburg) is often mentioned in the academical articles and books about AG. You can find more about his role here. If you think this is a copyright violation, we can of course change the statement slightly, but I can't see any reason we shouldn't mention him. --Хаченци (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is about German involvement in the genocide. Is he involved? How? The implication of the paragraph is that Neurath was involved, thus setting a pattern for his involvement in Nazi terror in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. If that's the claim then a better source is needed. I've scanned through Gust and there's nothing in there that I saw to justify Fisk's charge, although perhaps I overlooked something. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a copyvio. The phrase "was attached to the Turkish 4th Army in 1915 with instructions to monitor "operations" against the Armenians" is lifted wholesale. Again, what does Fisk mean by this? Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You scanned Gust, but didn't see how Neurath was involved? Hmmm,,, Nothing on pages 86-91?

I'm not Mr. Fisk and can't answer what he means. In any case, if it is a copyvio, we can simply rewrite the text, to make it clear this is a verbatim phrase from Fisk. The pragaraph would look then like this

Photographs exist that may suggest the Germans participated in the mass killing. One photograph shows two unidentified German army officers standing amidst human remains. The discovery of this photograph prompted English journalist Robert Fisk to draw a direct line from the Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust. Fisk noted that some of the German witnesses to the Armenian holocaust would later go on to play a role in the Nazi regime. He writes, in particular, «Konstantin Freiherr von Neurath, for example, was attached to the Turkish 4th Army in 1915 with instructions to monitor "operations" against the Armenians; he later became Hitler's foreign minister and "Protector of Bohemia and Moravia" during Reinhard Heydrich's terror in Czechoslovakia. Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg was consul at Erzerum from 1915-16 and later Hitler's ambassador to Moscow.». Хаченци (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, when I use the word involved, I'm referring to the actual murder of Armenians. My problem with this whole paragraph is that it's a non-sequitur. It starts with a paragraph showing German army officers at the scene of a massacre, with the implication that they were involved in killing, although Fisk acknowledges there's no proof of that either. It then mentions Neurath, a consular official who was apparently attached to a Turkish formation at some point, and notes Neurath's later involvement in the Third Reich. Probably thousands of Germans were both in Turkey in 1915-1918 and then filled a role in the Third Reich. That's not a revelation. I could see mentioning Neurath in a paragraph discussing the foreign office, but in its current location it's very misleading. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Britannica

Britannica changed "In response, the Turkish government ordered the deportation of about 1,750,000 Armenians to Syria and Mesopotamia. In the course of this forced exodus, about 600,000 Armenians died of starvation or were killed by Turkish soldiers and police while en route in the desert. (See Researcher's Note: Armenian massacres.) Hundreds of thousands more were forced into exile." to "In the course of that forced exodus, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died of starvation or were killed by soldiers and police while en route in the desert. Estimates of the total death toll generally range from 600,000 to 1,500,000. (See also Researcher’s Note.) Hundreds of thousands more were forced into exile."

The article "Armenian massacres" was rename to "Armenian Genocide" - [22]. Divot (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on the grounds they aren't very informative

Étienne (Personal attack removed) has taken to trimming his edits on the grounds that common folk might find them too hard to understand: "though important, this sentence is too long and might be too technical for a common reader". When I obliged by simplifying the sentence, making it comprehensible even to total dooshes like the rest of us always assuming of course we have a basic grasp of the lingo in the first place, Étienne still didn't care for that service either. It seems that what was bothering him all along was that quoting articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code is not something common folk need bother their arses about: "citing sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure is too technical for the common readership and doesn't provide much vital info either".

Well of course that's all very hurtful indeed. I laboured long and hard to make this edit available to the common masses. Still, "win some, lose some" eh Étienne?

But yet ... why in that case did Étienne make exactly this edit at Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 two days ago, sections of criminal code and all: "added information about the mazhar commission"?

If someone can explain this conundrum to me satisfactorily, i.e is why I should pay the slightest bit of attention to this nonsense at all, I shall be happy to removes the offending articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code when I restore the edit tomorrow evening. Otherwise I shall retain them. c1cada (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I added that information myself back when I thought it be necessary to highlight the Ottoman government's view of the events. However, seeing that this article has been getting longer and longer, it's best to trim the more detailed parts down. The Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure, and its specific sections (47, 75, and 87), is not really necessary information for an article about the Armenian Genocide in general. It may be important, but it's too technical. The masses who come to this article would like to learn about the Armenian Genocide in general. So it's best to trim the technical details and retain the more important parts. I don't regret adding it to the Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 article because technical matters concerning the trials is more relevant there. It also appears that you didn't labour "long and hard". Your edit didn't even change a word: ([23] to [24]).

Also, please stop poking fun of my English. It's irrelevant to the betterment of the article. Thanks! Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When you edit at Wikipedia you "irrevocably release your contribution". In simple English, you no longer own it. Your reversion of my copy edit (it was a copy edit - I split the sentence and did other stuff) is unwarranted and I propose to restore it. You will simply make yourself more ridiculous reverting an edit you essentially made yourself in two separate articles. There is no reasons why articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code shouldn't be quoted. Articles in other bodies of laws are frequently quoted in Wikipeda, for example the American Constitution and European Law. c1cada (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored it and Dr.K. then kindly brought it to a state of doosh perfection by cutting out the pedantry. I also restored another revert which had the effect of deleting the article's only link to Grace Knapp. The issue was the length of the caption in an image and that was easily dealt with by citing her as the eyewitness. c1cada (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to be a desperate pedant (flip no), but when Dr.K. rewrote the section header "grounds of" rather than "ground of" I originally had, that wasn't really a grammatical slip (I had "grounds" in the body). It's used in legal documents when referring to a single ground and it was just a slip on my part, though you do sometimes see it outside its strictly legal usage: for example Ethel Rosenberg used the phrase "I refuse to answer on the ground that this might be incriminating" in her trial for espionage. Just mentioning. c1cada (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K.'s edit addresses my concerns regarding the sections. C1cada's proposal, unfortunately, does not. Therefore, I am in support of Dr.K.'s modification. Also, please stop the edit-warring. It's a 1RR article, and you may get blocked. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're being rather humourless about this. I restored that edit of yours in the first place because I thought it was valuable (really). It did however need a copy edit (as so much of this article does). When a sentence is too long, as you initially complained, the answer is to split it and that's what I did. I took the Ottoman Criminal Code on good faith, but Dr. K. is quite right - it's very obscure, although Ottoman law does have its points of interest. Another revert I restored was to keep Grace Knapp (and the accompanying valuable citations which much have taken a certain amount of trouble to provide) in the article: a moment's thought showed how to do that without unnecessarily lengthening an image caption. That's not edit warring. c1cada (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I'm glad we were able to find common ground. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And you Dr. K. An admirer. c1cada (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, C1cada, your edit did not resolve the concerns I have raised here regarding the sections 47, 75, and 87. Your supposed copy-edited version was nothing but repackaged version of the initial version that still retained the concerns I've raised. My complaint about the sentence was that the sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure were too technical, and that other matters related to that tidbit of information may have been incomprehensible for an average reader. But you insisted to maintain the sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, your proposal was still problematic to that effect. In other words, it's either Dr.K.'s modification for me, or nothing at all. There's no need to talk about this anymore. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Etienne, I think c1cada has agreed to the copyedit I made. I don't think they insist on enumerating the numbered sections any longer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @c1cada: Thank you very much c1cada for the courtesy and very nice compliment, although I'm afraid you have set the bar (no pun intended) rather high. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Doctor, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. But those sections kept returning over and over again with supposed modified editions. Oh well, I guess that's old news now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Étienne, the edit you are complaining about was originally made by you [25]. It was very badly written and all I was doing was rescuing it. c1cada (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is no reasons why articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code shouldn't be quoted." - C1cada Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I see editors arguing about edits they both essentially agree with or at least they agreed with at some time. Perhaps it is time we just agreed to agree, at least on moving on? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the underlying issue issue here is the pressing need for copy editing at this article. Copy editing a Wikipedia article would be extremely high on the list of 100 things I don't plan to do before I die, but I'm willing to do my bit. On the other hand, if editors are going to be reverted and harassed every time they attempt a copy edit, then I can't see that this article is ever going to reach good article status. I repeat, of the two reverts I made at this article, one was to rescue this edit of Étienne's and the other was to restore an interesting and valuable link to Grace Knapp. That's not edit warring and to be threatened with a block by Étienne is outrageous. As for the Ottoman Criminal Code introduced by Étienne (which I see he's restored at the courts-martial article), I took it on good faith that the relevant articles were in fact readily available for inspection on the web. It turns they are not. If they were, there would be absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be quoted. I for one find that kind of thing exceptionally interesting. c1cada (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: And in fact Étienne has once again removed the link to Grace Knapp with it's valuable citations [26]. That's wilfully gratuitous because what was at issue apparently was the length of the caption in a thumbnail (no longer as it happens then many others in the article), yet my restoration shortened the existing caption. It's frankly too unpleasant to continue here. I shall take the Grace Knapp citations to her article. c1cada (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate the scale of copy editing required at this article, readers might care to glance at this copy edit I've just made. That was in a single paragraph visited by an editor here correcting grammar shortly before. c1cada (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I could not find in the article information related to a most important trial concerning the subject

In the article, I could not find any information or reference to a not-so-recent-now trial concerning the subject. The trial is shortly known as Perincek vs Switzerland trial; which took place in the European Court of Human Rights.

As a summary, in Switzerland, Dogu Perincek, leader of the Workers' Party (Turkey), publicly defined Armenian Genocide as an international and imperialist lie. He said what had happened was no genocide, but war. People from both opposite sides had lost their lives. He did this action to protest the law in Switzerland that defined denying Armenian Genocide as a crime. He was found guilty in the trials at the Federal Court of Switzerland. Perincek appealed to European Court of Human Rights, where he was found "had not committed an abuse of his rights within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention." The verdict can be found on this link.

An excerpt from the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights, about genocides in general is also significant: "The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths."

The Wiki article on the trial is also insufficient on terms of technical information.

94.121.70.191 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is ongoing. Editors are awaiting the judgment of the Grand Chamber on Switzerland's appeal. There hearings are not for the public record, so it's not surprising there's presently a hiatus. The passage from the Press Release you quote is presently incorporated. An editor did also contribute a whole wall of text from the original judgment, but that was primary source which had to be deleted as Wikipedia is about recording secondary sources. If you know a good secondary source which comments on the original verdict, perhaps you could incorporate it. I'll look again today later in the day, but I didn't find anything worth adding when I last looked. c1cada (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths." Seems like what this opinion says, in a roundabout way, is that due to the difficulty of proving genocide as a crime under int'l law, that if a general consensus exists about the nature of the historical events in question, that consensus represents a final conclusion about the events. Because the topic is so tricky, and there are ample opportunities for discussion, a general scholarly concensus can be viewed as settling the question conclusively, as a concensus would not be possible in a weak case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.0.104 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. For more information as to why Dogu Perincek had the typical excuse to further his own imperialist propaganda, look at here. --92slim (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to provide a URL for for the ECHR Press Release, I discovered that Wikipedia had blacklisted it (go figure). You can locate the PDF by searching on the terms <Criminal conviction for denial that the atrocities perpetrated against the Armenian people in 1915 and years after constituted genocide was unjustified ECHR>. The context of the remark quoted above is as follows:

The Court underlined that the free exercise of the right to openly discuss questions of a sensitive and controversial nature was one of the fundamental aspects of freedom of expression and distinguished a tolerant and pluralistic democratic society from a totalitarian or dictatorial regime. The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths. Lastly, the Court observed that those States which had officially recognised the Armenian genocide had not found it necessary to enact laws imposing criminal sanctions on individuals questioning the official view, being mindful that one of the main goals of freedom of expression was to protect minority views capable of contributing to a debate on questions of general interest which were not fully settled.

I simply allowed the edit that had been made to stand, though I think it's misleading. There was no secondary source I could find that commented in detail on the judgment, and it would have been OR for me to make any remarks. c1cada (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1920-1923 reprise

It's common ground that there was a reprise in the massacres in the period 1920-1923. Yet I can find no mention of these in the article, certainly not given the prominence one would expect with an article of this scope..

However that poses a problem with the lede where it says:

The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert.

By convention the lede introduces material dealt with in the body of the article, but as I say there seems to be no significant mention, if any mention at all, of the massacres known to have occurred after the end of World War I. Moreover the lede must be understood as saying that the massacres after the end of World War were also implemented in two phases, but I don't believe that is so. Moreover if the massacres that occurred in the reprise 1920-1923 are to be characterised as a genocide in its legal sense as a systematic state-planned attempt to exterminate the entire Armenian population, then that needs to be cited from good quality secondary sources.

Inevitably this article will be consulted during the upcoming 24th April commemoration. I do feel this lacuna needs filling before then. I have to say that, whereas I would be normally happy to give of my considerable expertise and my time, I'm not prepared to do so until the pecking order is sorted out here. c1cada (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted "and after" from the lede. I should be happy to contribute to a "1920-1923 reprise" section, but I'm not prepared to give more of time until the ownership issue I allude to above has been resolved and I receive an apology for my treatment here (threat of a block). c1cada (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your experience here, it could be a misunderstanding. The reprise is considered by many historians to be part of the Genocide, and to remove it from the article would be an insult to the victims. --92slim (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Most historians consider the reprise part of the Armenian Genocide. If you're interested in my own private views, I happen to consider all the massacres 1894-1923 to be part of the Armenian Genocide.

Regarding the lede, material there should be addressed in the article body. Your recent citations that you placed in the lede were reverted precisely for that reason - that they were better placed in the main body of the article. Presently the reprise is not addressed in the article and that is why I deleted "and after" [World War I], especially as it suggests the genocide (in its legal sense) continued past 1916.

This needs to be sorted before the commemoration. Because of the revert rules and the threat of a block made against me, I'm not prepared to intervene immediately. But if this issue is not sorted adequately by 23 April at the end of the 72 hour period I mention above, I shall intervene again.

I don't believe I'm labouring under any misunderstanding regarding the single purpose editing and ownership issues here. If they continue to imping on me, then I really don't see I have any alternative but to seek oversight. c1cada (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my goal to patronize you. This is just a wrong impression of yours. Understand that I'm not against your edit, you can revert this phrase as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not sure if it's the best idea to modify it, because, as you've rightly pointed out, it did last after the WWI. To which extent, I'm not sure; it could be corroborated by other sources. --92slim (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bring our Talk page interactions here. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia edit issue at stake. The "and after" phrase in the lede should certainly be deleted in the present state of the article (this evening I shall research how it first appeared). I can't do that because in the first place that would be edit warring, and secondly because I'm threatened with a block from a long-standing editor here who appears to have administrator approval. The least you could do, and I assume it will not be much of a task for you given your evident expertise, is to provide a section about the 1920-1923 reprise and then edit the lede so that it doesn't suggest the forced marches continued past the First World War (it's another defect of the article that it doesn't make clear when the deportations ceased), and above all that it doesn't suggest the genocide (in the legal sense) continued after 1916 past the end of the First World War. If you can't do that, then I suggest you self-revert your edit. c1cada (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is as follows:

Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

That the massacres continued after the end of Word War I is not a trivial fact and that these latter massacres also constitute a genocide in its legal sense is not acknowledged.

Please don't leave this matter unattended. c1cada (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the "Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence." bit. I do believe that's suffice to say that massacres continued after WW1. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No it's not sufficient, Étienne. It's in a section "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" but we are concerned with events afer 1918. It doesn't address the question of deportations and genocide implied after the end of World War I (surely your comprehension skills are adequate to see that) and there's not sufficient weight to justify the mention in the lede. In short the reader is misled. Once again I wonder whether you indeed really do think me stupid. This needs sorting, Étienne. c1cada (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the edit "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I ...", originally the copy read "just after the end" and referred to "systematic killings". Thus 10 July 2012 revision is typical:

• The Armenian Genocide was the systematic killing of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.

However neither of the citations provided (IAGS 1997, UN Whitaker 1982) record the genocide as continuing until just after the end of World War I.

This edit on 17 July 2012 ("To tighten focus and add specificity") deleted the qualifier "just" so that the copy now read "It took place during and after World War I ..." and now referred to "systematic extermination" rather than "systematic killing".

On 17 August 2012, an editor attempted to restore the previous lede ("Restoring the original, reasonably well-crafted introduction that had been mangled and propagandised by <redacted>)". This was reverted within the hour by <redacted> "because of no basis in discussion for replacement with earlier version". This in turn was reverted back 22 August 2012 "Revert to restore cited content and remove inaccurate content that had been given fake citations. See "Disruptive edits by <redacted>" in the talk page". Two hours later we get "Reversion of erroneous, unsupported edit ..." from <redacted>, and this won the day as far as the edit we are concerned with here.

Finally, on 2 June 2014 an editor replaced the pronoun "it" by "genocide" ("To refine logical order in the initial paragraph") so that the edit read:

• ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey during and after World War I. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ...

This last edit is in conformity with the facts and what is acknowledged regarding the genocide (note it's not saying the genocide continued after World War I).

Unfortunately the same editor the following day refined his edit ("To refine the use of "genocide" and other style issues in the initial paragraph") to arrive at

• The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...

which is not in conformity with the facts nor acknowledged regarding the claim of genocide after the end of World War I.

I would say there are two factors at work here, inadequate language skills and sloppy oversight.

Will the world pay any attention to Wikipedia's showcase Armenian Genocide article on 24 April? Frankly I wonder, but in case it does I cordially countenance my esteemed colleagues to do something about this before then. I can't because Étienne will block me. c1cada (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading your 4,000+ character response, I've realized that much of it is irrelevant to this discussion. Please, let's keep things short. As for the issue in question, I must remind you that the Turkish War of Independence occurred after World War 1, and so did the massacres that accompanied that war. Therefore, we can't simply say that WW1 was the only period in which systematic massacres took place. That'll be contrary to what the academic community supports in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait until you see the 400,000 word book, Étienne ... . Meanwhile you are not addressing the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section issue I highlight. That "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ..." edit seriously misleads the reader (I dare say it was responsible for the "eight years of genocide" that crept into the POTD caption, which you defended at the POTD Template Talk page with an OR wall of text certainly exceeding 4,000+ characters). Fix it before tomorrow afternoon, or I will. c1cada (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. c1cada (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, had to revert. There was no WP:CONSENSUS to that wording. Propose the wording first, then we'll see what the community says. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits of good faith regarding the Turkish Republic needs to be discussed. The Turkish nationalist forces actually had a government in Ankara by the time of the Turkish-Armenian War. This government was replete with cabinet ministers and a president. So it wasn't just an army. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Good faith eh? Nothing needs to be discussed about a republic that didn't exist at the time. c1cada (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And you also reverted me on "historic homeland". What did you mean in your edit summary by "Also, 'historic homeland' can be outside Western Armenia too". That is exactly the point, Étienne. There wwas an Eastern part, the Caucasus, which the Turkish army tried to appropriate post Word War I. But that Eastern part does not lie within Turkey's present day borders as the article claims. Left unsaid, but I'll say it now, that it is of course laughable that such an elementary error of fact in the very first sentence of the lede survived for so long. One has to wonder why that might be. Do we really have to get your permission here to distinguish East from West, Étienne. c1cada (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Historical homeland refers to the homeland that Armenians lived historically. This doesn't have to be Western Armenia. It can be Izmir, Sivas, and Ankara as well, which were all outside the territorial integrity of Western Armenia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

600,000+ Armenians lived in their historical homeland in Western Armenia in the Caucasus, of which at least 60,000 were subsequently massacred during the Armenian Genocide. Which bits of the Cauacasus lie in present day Turkey? (Personal attack removed) Anyway I'm off to watch a bit of Game of Thrones now. For strictly financial reasons I have to watch all 50+ episodes before the end of the month, which as it turns out is quite a pleasant task. I'm surprised because usually I glaze over after a couple of episodes in a box set. The sex is absolutely dreadful of course and I fast forward there as much as I can, but the violence is totally brilliant. Back later. Ciao (whatever). c1cada (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No you didn't have to revert, Étienne. I clearly explained the issue (it is essentially a copy edit issue and a Wikipedia MOS edit issue regarding the lead). I explained I was unwilling to spend the time to deal with it myself, especially considering the very discourteous manner I have been dealt with you in the matter of reverts and so on. I gave the editors time here to make the necessary adjustments, and when they didn't I stepped in, spending time (and money) on providing the edit. As it now stand, this article will enter the centenary commemoration with fundamental flaws of both copy and fact in its lead, and lacking an adequate description of the massacres after the end of World War I, and that is entirely your doing. It is not even as if my edits deny the genocide (you have accused me of being complicit in the Armenian genocide) you are so anxious to champion. My edit concerning the massacres after World War I came as close as the sources allow to describe those also as genocide. There was no need to seek a consensus about the wording as there had not previously been an edit provided about the massacres after the end of World War I, except for a single sentence misplaced in the wrong section and containing a laughable error of historical fact. You should regard my edit about the massacres after the end of World War I as WP:BOLD. You are entitled to revert if you take exception to details in it, but I don't see that here. What is your problem with the edit? As for the lead edit I made, that is essentially a copy edit and a Wikipedia MOS issue as detailed closely above and I don't require consensus to act there either. c1cada (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Under that logic, we shouldn't be accusing the Turkish government of genocide today because the Republic didn't exist at that time.

Would you care to clarify on that Étienne? You have already accused me of complicity in the genocide. Now it seems that the present day Turkish government is enaged in an ongoing genocide as well?

Later tonight I will restore your excellent Grace Knapp edit (which you made without consensus ...). Perhaps you would care to do me the same service?

How nice it would be on the commemoration day for Wikipedia to showcase an article demonstrating its strengths. c1cada (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I never accused you of complicity in genocide. The Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923, with the establishment of a Republic. But the Turkish government, as we know of it today, was well intact before then. To merely say that the mass killings were under an irregular army, and not under an army operating under a government, is to misrepresent sources, and mislead readers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't a republic. You said it. And I didn't say the massacres were committed by an irregular army. I used the phrase "Turkish army" per my source. Straw man. c1cada (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't propose your edit. You merely went ahead and unilaterally edited it to your liking. I still suggest you propose it first, then we can make arrangements through WP:CONSENSUS. Remember, this article is under discretionary sanctions and 1RR restrictions. It's unlike most articles in Wikipedia. In other words, we should be careful about what we add here.

As for that discussion above, there was no definitive conclusion to it. In fact, it appears that more users wanted to have the current wording remain as such. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Figure of Four Million

My heart and respect goes out to the victims as the 100th anniversary approaches. Having done more research online, I notice a partial discrepancy between several wikipedia pages. The file [[27]] is a poster stating, "The frank story of Aurora Mardiganian who survived while four millions [sic] perished" The image file appears in Ravished_Armenia which is her book, but it appears to possibly be not a cover of her book but a poster for an American film Ravished_Armenia_(film) based on it. It seems to be there are at least these two possibilities:

• If the figure of 4 million is credible or at least plausible (meaning, not 100% certain but not ruled out) then it seems that it should, at the very least, be included in this article on the Armenian Genocide, rather than only "The total number of people killed during the genocide has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5" million

• On the other hand, it appears not to be a figure given in that poster but not in her book. If it is not accurate, then it should be made very clear to readers (so that it is not used to attack the entire idea of the Armenian Genocide) in that case, that the mistakenly large figure came from an American film, and not from this Armenian woman. That this might be the case is suggested by searching books.google.com [28] for the book and then searching within it for the word "million" A few pages matching that word are not displaying so I cannot see them, but those that I do see numbers that agree with the present article, things like "Title: The last survivor of a million Christian girls" and "it is estimated that there were some two million Armenians living in Turkey as of 1915. Half of them were killed.." indicating an estimate of 1 million and thus within the range the opening of this article gives. In this case it should be clarified that there was an inaccuracy coming from (probably well intentioned) Hollywood, that is, that this error did not come from this Armenian woman's book but from the film.

For those who may feel this can be ignored by the article, I disagree for several reasons. First, it is a notable film. Second, it was released in restored version in 2009 -- Ravished_Armenia_(film)#Reception -- and apparently a copy is on youtube (though I need to look at it).

Thirdly, I can't be the only person who investigates on wikipedia, and finds is confusing and troubling that there is one article (maybe more) with a prominent poster stating "4 million" while another, the main one, gives a different figure. For these reasons something should be put in or the contradiction addressed in some other way.

This will need to be done delicately so as not to give ammunition to those who deny the whole thing, but ignoring it only gives them far more ammunition (you can think of examples yourself of other historical crimes) where they leap on one single exaggerated number from one source and point at it over and over again, claiming (falsely) that it came from the main scholars, rather than (as appears to be the case here) from a film. Having alerted those who frequent this page, I will leave it to them to find consensus. Harelx (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harelx: I appreciate your good faith effort to help better this article. The four million figure from the Ravished Armenia poster can hardly be taken seriously. The number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire was at most 2 million. I'd say that poster is nothing more than an advertising gimmick to draw in more interest. On the other hand, we use the estimations provided by the academic and scholarly community, as is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harelx: Hi Harelx and welcome to Armenian Genocide from the little folk who also edit there. There's a still from Ravaged Armenia in the section Portrayal in the media. If that's right about a figure of four million fatalities given by the film, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be mentioned in the blurp. If Étienne gives you grief over it, let me know! c1cada (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If one includes the contemporaneous Greek and Assyrian genocides, they get another million to million and a half deaths. If the best modern estimates are two to three million total killed in the genocides, that a 1919 estimate, made while much of the region was still a warzone, is four million, well, that's a very good estimate. WilyD 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might well be so. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS] extended the genocide to include Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks, and dates these genocides to 1914 - 1923 in their 13 July 2007 resolution. That may very well bring the total to four million. Note, however, that on the issue of the Armenian genocide, IAGS continues to acknowledge genocide only in the years 1915-1916, the year of the death marches. The historical record is that the massacres continued until shortly after the end of the First Word War and then broke out again in 1920-1923, but these are not acknowledged as genocide proper. c1cada (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: (I hope I typed that in correctly by hand, I don't have fancy tools to ping people), thanks. What I am suggesting is one of two things (I tried to use numbered list with # sign but both showed "1" instead of "1" and "2" so I used the asterisk symbol as two bullet points) but there are the two possible cases.

In the one case, if the figure is "clearly wrong" then I am urging people to a) at the very least say so in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravished_Armenia and b) Possible state also here that there were some early inaccurate estimates (or, that it's a figure which counted things beyond the "Armenian genocide proper" as I think one editor phrased it)

Or else, in the other case, were 3-4 million is "possible" then it should be mentioned in this article.

Either of these two cases would require (at least a short one or two sentences) be mentioned here acknowledging such posters at the time as the poster shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravished_Armenia (which includes the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ravished_Armenia.jpg ) Or, after investigation/consensus, one of these two should be stated. Right now, neither is stated; the article does not acknowledge that such posters stating "4 million" ever existed - but clearly they did.

Again I leave it to you with more expertise than me. But I searched in my browser for every single mention of the word "million" in the article, and apparently no mention is there. I am suggesting and encouraging us to mention it, somewhere. How to mention, I leave to the experts; it is one of the two above ways (or perhaps a third way more nuanced) like, either "if one includes...then the figure is 3-4 million" or else, "early contemporary estimates or movies quoted 4 million' but..." or some middle ground between those.

But right now as far as I can see it's not acknowledged at all. I hope I am being more clear; I am not suggesting "which way" to acknowledge, but to in some way acknowledge (agreeing, or disagreeing but more nuanced) with that figure that, as the poster shows, was clearly quoted by some at the time. Maybe it is a case of "If one includes the contemporaneous Greek and Assyrian genocides" or another explanation - I'm just suggesting that, in one shape or another, some reference needs to be made. Harelx (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In honor of April 24, 1915, and the memory of the Armenian genocide, I want to say a few words, but I know the Talk page is not for that, so instead, just a link, to two relevant, important, little-known quotes by Einstein, his Message to Posterity (a time capsule from 1936, opened many years later) and his Message to Youth (especially last sentence) are only a few lines long but relevant, see [29] (no, it's not his famous answer to "what weapons do you think will be used in World War III, Dr Einstein?" where he answered "I don't know, but I know what weapons will be used in World War IV: sticks and stones" - but something more profound) Harelx (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have opened an ANI discussion here that may concern editors here. c1cada (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

I compliment Etienne on the remarkable improvement in his grammar at the ANI. The fact is that POTD would have gone out with "eight years of genocide" but for my vigorous intervention. The fact is that the lede misleads the reader as to the nature of the post World War I massacres. The fact is that the post World War I massacres are not treated in the article. The fact is that there are simple errors of fact that are not being corrected in this article. So long as the present protectionist stance of the editors continue, I see no prospect at all of Armenian Genocide ever reaching Good Article status. c1cada (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Will you stop taking digs at his language already? Do it again, and I'll be the one dragging you to ANI. How many times do you need be told to stop? Alakzi (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. It was sincerely meant. I would be the last to 'dig' at someone's language. A casual glance at my edits show how much I struggle with my own copy. The thing is, I do recognize my shortcomings and take steps to correct them. As for this article it is clear, as I demonstrated in my 4,000+ character wall of text above, that significant errors of intent can arise when language skills are not adequate. I am bilingual in four languages, but I am only literate in English and would not dream of carrying forward a complex text in one of my other languages. c1cada (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full Protection

I have changed the protection of the page to full, this is only for the next 2 days to let the high traffic of the page to cool off. Afte that the article should return to smei protected. Thanks. Rhumidian (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

you have done no such thing. Only administrators can protect articles. If you wish for the page to be protected, ask at WP:RFPP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

Please correct the article "is" to "as" in this, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the article: "Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915."

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mery George (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I thinks it's "rejects ... as " or "denies ... is". As the collocations in the corpus are overwhelmingly "denies", I think we should stay as we are. But I do appreciate the distinction you make. c1cada (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)