Talk:Adana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adana Massacre

The information about "Adana Massacre" lacks neutrality.

• the number of fatal causalties in the article (30,000) exceeds even the arguably biased data from the Armenian Patriarchate (21,300 according to the investigation it carried out.)
• the Armenian Patriarch was responsible to a great extent for the incidents, according to a report of the British Ambassador dated May 4, 1909 (Foreign Office, 424/219, No. 83.)

This is not a denial of an actual incident, but the use of adjectives and the use of unchecked or partial sources turn the paragraph into a non-neutral one. It could be better to open a separate article showing the conflicting viewpoints. 216.244.240.249 01:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Adana Massacre"

For user: 211.48.24.219:two sites mentioning the Adana Massacre(i decided not to include an armenian one):[1],[2] Why are u denying such a historical event?--Hectorian 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"A Treachery to Ottoman Empire"

If you insist on pointing out "Adana Massacre" , its place is right under the famous "Armenian Genocide" page. If you plan to insert "historic facts" on how many Armenians were killed on each Turkish cities page, I am sure some other guy will come with the bright idea of editing the Armenian cities, which are only a few. --Isarioglu 20:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is exactly the right place for the Adana massacre. This is not a Turkish government site. I make no difference between people who remove information on the Armenian genocide and Holocaust deniers who remove information on the holocaust. I revert them at sight.--Wiglaf 20:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf,

On the "Armenian Genocide" , I express my knowledge and ideas of what really happened on discussion page. For the events between 1919 and 1922, I have to ask you a simple question:

What would happen to a minority in YOUR country, if that minority would cooperate with the invaders and further, join their armed forces and make YOUR civilians suffer or kill them for revenge, money or fun, after the invaders are gone?

I thing you would revert them at sight...

The civilized way would be to arrest individuals who committed crimes, not to condemn an entire nation to ethnic cleansing. There is a reason why Slobodan Milosevic is in prison at the moment.--Wiglaf 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglav,

When one person in ten does commits this crimes and you have efficent ways to restore order and organise trials, that is the way it should be done. If this is not the case, it is called civil war, the most unpleasent and bloody kind of war. Yet the article itself explains how brevly Adana Armenians fighted against the local Turks when French withdraw, and be sure not with stones. Ethnic cleansing is one thing, civil war is another.

Tashnak terror onto Ottoman Armenians, who did not share their point of view and other Ottoman authorities, the bloody Armenian revolt at 1915, which killed a quarter million of Turks and Kurds in a span of few months, a geat many Armenian youths joining the invading armies at 1919 does not look worth mentioning at Wikipedia.

The exile of Armenians, which resulted with a disaster is a shame on Ottoman but not on modern Turkey. You have to understand that at early 1915, the same Ottoman Empire has send his best army, consisting of choosen, big , strong Turkmen youngsters to death at -40 Celcius at Battle of Sarikamish. 90,000 of best Ottoman soldier has frozen, because some pasha has arranged that the only regiment with good winter wear paraded 10 times in front of Enver Pasha. And Enver never questioned why soldiers started to freeze , until it was too late.

--Isarioglu 22:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Adana massacre is not really related with the Armenian genocide, it happened in 1909, and the official Ottoman version doesn't deny it really happened. In fact, it is the only massacre of Armenians, that the "other side" do not entirly disagree with the official version. The Ottoman advanced 15 thousand as number of victims, Western sources varry from 20,000 to 30,000. The minimum range is pretty close to the Ottoman figures. Beside, there were Ottoman trials after the event condemning many that participated in the massacres. So, I really don't see what your regurgitated revionism regarding the Armenian genocide is doing in the Adana talk page. Beside, what you think is the truth, is not proper Wiki talk page discussion. Talk pages don't exist to establish what is the truth or not, but rather discuss regarding the different official positions. Fadix 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

To those who are removing the Greek name

Please don't. Although it is historical most Wikipedia articles have the historical name in the first paragraph. See Gdańsk for example. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• if its true,can you explain me why the turkish name in the Kos entry was deleted and moved to history section?

• • I'll re-add that. It was removed by some anon. --Khoikhoi 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You are provoking people.I will report you

Foreign and historical placenames are explicitly encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names). Specifically:

"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."

Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Name, Hittites, Cilicia etc.

Re. this addition: "Its history goes back to the ancient Hittites,calling the area;Uru Adaniya which means Land of Adana.The city later took the name of the son of Pheonician King Agenor's son Cilic,which turned into Antiochia in Cilicia (Αντιόχεια της Κιλικίας) or Antiochia ad Sarum (Αντιόχεια η προς Σάρο)"

I have severe doubts.

• It's not "Cilic", it's Cilix.
• Cilix and Agenor are legendary personalities.
• Cilix is related to the naming legend not of the city, but of the region of Cilicia. The city was obviously named not directly after him, but after the country.
• If we talk about the naming of "Antiochia in Cilicia", then of course we'll have to talk about some "Antiochus", who is obviously the direct name patron of the Hellenistic founding of the city.
• I'd require solid references for the claim that the name "Adaniya" was used previously by the Hittites. Not that I'd exclude it, at first sight, but the only reference I can find on the web is a single text that is spread identically across a couple dozen Turkish-language websites. Not very confidence-inspiring.
• If "Adaniya" was used before the Hellenistic era, we need a more detailed discussion about the side-by-side tradition of "Adan(iy)a" and "Antiochia" in antiquity.
• Further down in the article it is said that the city was founded in the first century BC. That must be the foundation under the name of "Antiochia", obviously. The relation between that foundation and any previous Hittite settlement must be clarified.
• There's a weird sentence further down in the article that I noticed only now: "Adana is the only city, whose name has remained the same for centuries in the world". What's meant by that? (Given the fact that "Antiochia" and "Adana" are clearly two different names.)

Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the name of the city comes from an ancient Hititian legend, about the son of King, called Adanus. Antiochus is about Tarsus, not Adana itself. By the way, Tarsus doesn't locates at the border of city not only in modern time but also in ancient times. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the dab page at Antiochia, both Tarsus and Adana were called Antiochia at one time, there were a hell of a lot of different Antiochias. As for "Adana", I can now at least confirm that it too is ancient, and there's an eponymous report or legend about one "Adanos" as a founder. It's in Greek sources; I wonder if we can trace it back to Hittite ones (I rather doubt it). So, do we have an ancient settlement that was re-founded or re-established under the name of Antiochia at one time but kept the original name of Adana side by side with it? Given this complexity, it might be a better idea after all to move the historical names further down in the article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It seems Dbachmann had the same thought. Good, then let's leave it at that. Would be nice to have a source attesting the Hittite name too. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

about armenian genocide

Hi all,

I live in Adana and if you are interested in furthering your info. of genocide in Adana, I have lost of proofs that there were Turkish genocide in Adana. Genocide of Armenians in Adana is an example of Armenian lies.. In the north of Adana where Kozan and Kadirli locate, there were lots of graves of people who were killed by Armenians. Additionally, in those places there are some photo museums which shows the total killing actitvities of Armenians by the aid of France. Besides, I want to point that there were newer 30.000 Armenians in Adana at that time.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the paragraph about the Adana massacre. I cited two sources - one Armenian and one Turkish. Please cite your source about the killings of Turks by Armenians. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

the page is about a city, it is not about a genocide. The article doesnt need a genocide. we should disscuss it in this talk page. I am preparing my sources to disscuss in this page, not to put them to article. I advise you to do the same. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that what occured in Adana was not a genocide but a massacre, this is universally accepted to be the case. Furthermore, the massacres occured on both sides and I strongly agree that the tragic event has no business in the Adana article!

Agree --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article isn't about the massacre, but it's still worth adding a small paragraph about it. I cited two sources, please don't remove it again until you have a source that says it didn't happen. --Khoikhoi 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that there is a discussion about wether the Adana massacre should be in this article.Adana should not be 'treated' differently than the articles about other cities.removing a specific historic event from an article about a specific city,is nothing more than an attempt to hide the facts!the reference must stay for the same reasons as,e.g. the 526 earthquake is mentioned in the article Antioch...it is a History(=unchangable)--Hectorian 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to mention massacres, which is obviously a serious issue, you also need to put it into context or else, it just sounds like the locals just woke up one morning and decided to go on a killing spree against the Armenians!

It was not caused by the locals,but rather by the authorities.but in any case,there should be only a mention of this in this article.further details about the victims and what lead to this event can be found in Adana holocaust(which,btw,has to be made NPOV and be expanded).--Hectorian 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right, there was also a massacre of Turks instigated by the Armenians so, although the figures may not be in the same order, it is important to point this out, if not, like in the Armenian "genocide" article, the Turks are being portrayed as evil doers, part of the systematic Armenian campaign to sully the image of Turks. The Adana Holocaust article is clear proof of this!

And BTW, it was local officials, there were no orders coming from the central government!

I am not aware of the level of your memory,nor am i interested to know it.if u have sources about a massacre of the turks by the armenians,cite them.but if u omit the reference to the armenian massacre,just cause it does not fit in your POV,it is u who makes the Turks are being portrayed as evil doers,cause u try to delete history.

and btw,when saying 'locals' i meant citizens.u do not know if the local officials had orders by the central government or not.and in any case,those who ruled did this,not the ordinary people.--Hectorian 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry, I wasnt trying to recall my memory for your blue eyes, the whole period relating to the Ottoman downfall is surrounded by controversy with claims and counter claims, forged documents, plots, assassination attempts, rebellions etc. So excuse me but just because a bunch of racist Armenian bigots or the so called "academicians" decide to point the finger on the common Turks as instigators of all massacres, just like Goldhagen did with "Hitler's willing executioners", doesnt mean that they hold a monopoly on truth. Learn to be more objective and look closer at the supportive evidence and then you will realize that its just a pile of rubbish! I dont know and dont care to know what you think, but there is a clear pattern of discrediting the Turk and portraying them as evil doers and, sadly, this disease seems to have crept into Wiki!

EXCUSE ME, mr.proff. but under the terms of Serves, Ottoman military was dissmissed. so they were taken orders from Eng, Fr. and It. How cany you be sure of knowing what happened in this city ? Please, don't blame people before being sure. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE MOI,mr clever.but the Adana massacre happened in 1909,before the treaty of Sevres.so,it u who should not blame people before being sure...--Hectorian 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is genocide, not in this case.

TuzsuzDeliBekir,i wonder for how long u will be reverting the article without having any single source to do so.the Adana massacre occured,it is not your fault,and u can't change it.so,stop deleting it.--Hectorian 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only me but also some editors too. I still translating the sources to English. and stop being histeric. look what you wrote. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused of numbers. At this time the population of the city was about 30.000 and according to Ottoman sources there were only about 3000 Armenians lived in the city so how come 30.000 Armenians could be killed? [3]

I am not hysteric,i know what i wrote,do u know what are u doing?u are reverting edits without sources.well,translate them,present them and then,if u are right,revert the previous edits.I will try to help u about the numbers confusion that u have:the massacre refears to the Adana villayet,not only to the city.--Hectorian 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you know that vilayet means city in turkish.

in the administrative divisions of Ottoman empire,vilayets included only cities?or also rural areas?i am not saying what it means in the lexicon,but how the word was used in the administrative system.--Hectorian 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reoublic of Turkey uses the same adm. division for cities. According to its defination, a city is a center which local admin. locates and rural areas which are in the border of the city that is drew by government. Little is changed in adm. divison of the city after Ottoman Empire.

I looked the sources that yopu put at the ref. section. First of all, onyl one of them is paralell to your claim which was written by Armenian, well I have some question for it, but before asking them could you please tell me how you can reach you claim (by judging people) without reading a counter-sources ? Have you ever read an Ottoman sources ? Or, this is much more important that you and those guys who wrote this sources without coming to place where their claim (30.000 of them were killed) ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 10:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that i understood what u said about the adm.system.lets be clear:a vilayet contained only a city,a city and a small rural area or a city and a vast rural area,something like that drawn in the map in this article?cause if it is the last case,i find the claim that there were not that many armenians in the city or non importance...

I have put no links at the reference section.but whoever did it,he was not supposed to include many references for the Adana massacre.it is an article about Adana,and the massacre is just mentioned in the history section.do not accuse me by saying "you and those guys who wrote this sources" or "judging people".look at the top of this page...i provided 2 links without including neither an armenian nor a turkish one.look at the date:i did it 3 days before.i am not trying to present an event that never happened.i am just trying to point at an event,that happened in Adana and is part of the city's history.it will be very interesting if u show some ottoman sources,as well as if someone wants to show some armenian sources.this will be a good balance for the discussion.but i think that neutral sources should be used in the article.the number in the article is 20-30,000,for the reason that there is not a source clear or neutral enough about the exact number of the victims.but this does not mean that the event did not happen.so,i find it ridiculous for anyone to try to delete it.and btw,i am not supposed to visit any place on earth were an event happened so as to write about it.Regards--Hectorian 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. City is the place where its borders are drew by government. by means of that it can be big or small. It depends on citizens. For inst. Konya a Turkish city is bigger than some european country. I dont have much time, at some point I agree with you, so we can talk later --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[4] you should take a look at this. Secondly, the event is a blury case, because most of the historians are aggree on that the Adana massacres, and Hamidian massacres resulting to what appears to be an attempt of population maximization.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting page...but it is a turkish one.i would like to see sources by non-turkish and non-armenian sites.both of them may be biased and not considered neutral.In any case,i am not debating the numbers.i can't!what i think suitable is to include the massacre as a historic event in the history section,and to stop reverting and 'hiding' it.the numbers are the 2nd level of discussion.if we finally accept the reference of the massacre in the article,we can then search for the most appropriate number of victims.i am pretty sure that noone knows exact numbers about that time.the point is which estimation can be considered more neutral...--Hectorian 21:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

since we all agree that massacres took place and also agree that the figures are not reliable, I suggest we omit any reference to the numbers killed! The mention of a massacre should suffice on this page, beyond that, it become propaganda!

Hectorian, stop blaming me, If I revert a page, I sign it. I think I have read some from www.answer.com. What I am afraid is whetver it is going to be a propaganda or not.since we don

't know how many of them escaped, how many of them were killed or how many of them are still alive. We still have some Armenian villages in Adana. As a general idea around 1000 are loss. At second place, we should delete the section before being aggree. Additionally, the sources showed in the reference section are totally non-sense, I am remowing them. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont whether you saw it or not, but a user opened a category for this diss. I think we should go there for disscussion. Do you agree ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that there still are armenian villages in adana area.i do not agree in deleting the section before discussing,but i will not re-add it(for i do not wanna start a new revert-war).lets deal with the sources and numbers(cause,i think,that's the problem) in the discussion page that u said.--Hectorian 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are Armenian villages in Adana, one of them is close to my villages. You are right because number is the most important problem in this case. most of the historian use Ottoman and German sources, though Germans had right to open ever door in the empire and thier sources are more relevant. Unfortunately, as I wrote above, nobody knows who escaped. Either of the sources and some France sources showed that around 30.000 Armenians escaped durin WWI. So, the number showed in the page is irrelevant. What I am aganist is non-sense propagandas. As we all know, Turks were also killed by Armenians during WWI. Those were armed by France army. At this point, we, if you wear a uniform, you are a soldier of the nation whose uniform you wear, cannot say 'Armenian' for them. Anyway, our topic is the number of whom were killed.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just note that we are talking about events that happened in 1909,not in 1914-18(WWI).i do not know if or how many turks were killed by armenians during WWI(i am talking about civilians,i am sure that soldiers died),but still,here we are talking about 1909.--Hectorian 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion - how about we mention the massacre but not include any numbers for now? --Khoikhoi 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What the 1911 Britannica says

Here is what the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) says about Adana; author is David George Hogarth. I have preserved it texto, so it uses old spellings for placenames, and calls the Ottomans 'Turks'.

(1) A vilayet in the S.E. of Asia Minor, which includes the ancient Cilicia. The mountain districts are rich in unexploited mineral wealth, and the fertile coast-plain, which produces cotton, rice, cereals, sugar and much fruit, and affords abundant pasturage, is well watered by the rivers that descend from the Taurus range. Imports and exports pass through Mersina (q.v.).

(2) The chief town of the vilayet, situated in the alluvial plain about 30 m. from the sea in N. lat. 37° 18′. E. long. 35 18, on the right bank of the Seihan (Sihun, anc. Sarus), which is navigable by small craft as far as the town. Adana is connected with Tersus and Mersina by a railway built in 1887, and has a magnificent stone bridge, which carries the road to Missis and the east, and dates in parts from the time of Justinian, but was restored first in 743 a.d. and called Jisr al-Walid after the Omayyad caliph of that name, and again in 840 by the Caliph Mutasim. There are, also, a ruined castle founded by Harun al-Rashid in 782, fine fountains, good buildings, river-side quays, cotton mills and an American mission with church and schools. Adana, which retains its ancient name, rose to importance as a station on the Roman military road to the East, and was at one time a rival of Tarsus. The town was largely rebuilt by Mansutr in 758, and during subsequent centuries it often changed hands and suffered many vicissitudes. Its position, commanding the passage of the mountains to the north of Syria, rendered it important as a military station in the contest between the Egyptians and the Turks in 1832. After the defeat of the Turkish army at Konia it was granted to Ibrahim Pasha, and though the firman announcing his appointment named him only muhassil, or collector of the crown revenue, it continued to be held by the Egyptians till the treaty of July 1840 restored it to the Porte. The chief productions of the province are cotton, corn, sesame and wool, which are largely exported. The population of the town is greatly mixed, and, having a large element of nomads in it, varies much from time to time. At its maximum it reaches nearly 50,000.

So it appears that the EB11, which is normally very keen on classical identifications, does not identify it with any ancient "Antiochia" and indeed explicitly says it kept its ancient name of Adana. We need better sources.... Some of the historical information could also be added to the article. --Macrakis 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Helal Bekir

Mücadeleye devam.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

History section

I've removed the links about armenian atrocities against the turks.no links are provided for the Adana massacre either,although some have been provided here,in the talk-page.i have to say that the links seem rather anti-armenian...I am not removing anything more at the moment,since more neutral sources may be provided.also,i removed the reference(a slight reference about a supposed high number-if i understood well),cause there was a compromise not to mention numbers about the Adana massacre either.--Hectorian 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[5]

  [6] 
  [7]

All these links are refearing to 1915,1914 and 1914-15 respectively.moreover they are talking about all Anatolia and not only Adana.In addition,they come from sites that can hardly be considered neutral,and contain newspaper contemporary articles,not academic sources.i am not saying that these articles show false events,but many times we all have read articles in newspapers that were reverted sooner the next day...--Hectorian 19:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but since when are the NYTimes or the BostonGlobe not to be considered reliable sources? Just becuase they are not academic per say doesnt mean that they are any less valid! In fact they should be taken more seriously than the comments from so called acamedicians such as Dadrian who is a well known bigot and big time racist against Turks. I agree that the articles themseleves are not directly related to what happened in 1909, but one can argue that the events of 1909 are amongst the precursors of the massacres that followed during WWI!

And by the way, TAT is an amazingly well documented site with lots of FACTUAL information unlike most of the rubbish that is spewed on Armenian sites.

The newspaper articles do not always contain reliable information (would u like me to mention all these reliable newspapers that were talking about biological weapons in iraq just 3 years ago?).Academic sources are more reliable than the previous mentioned.and if u do not consider Dadrian as reliable,better consider Orhan Pamuk...

and again,these events are supposed to have happened in all Anatolia,not only in Adana.i find no other reason of them been mentioned here,than to reduce the significance of the Adana massacre.

btw,TAT is a propagandistic site...far away than been considered neutral!--Hectorian 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TAT is not progpaganda, far from it, it uses various sources to validate its claims, its one of the most comprehensive sites rejecting the "genocide" thesis and that probably explains why Turk haters like yourself cant stand it. As for Pamuk, he is an amazing writer and I find it rather curious that he mentioned what happened to the Armenians as a massacre and NOT a genocide!

As for academic sources, as long as it does not argue against the genocide thesis its ok I guess? That ma boy is whats called censorship, something you and your armenian buddies seem to be very acquainted and at ease with! Sorry, but your argument about academicians is just not credible if you apply it in a biased manner!

Speaking with nationalists is a lose of time, Hectorian. As for sources concerning the Adana Massacre, we can cite Histoire de l'empire ottoman (1989), by a pool of historians directed by Robert Mantran, chapter 14, written by Paul Dumont and François Georgeon. This book can hardly be called anti-Turk, on the contrary the appreciation and respect for the Ottoman institutions and history pervades all the book. Aldux 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist? wow, thats news to me, didnt even realize that I was not only Turksih but a fervent nationalist for defending the cause!!! Arent you assuming a bit too much and isnt your profound obsession with anything hellenic an indication that you probably arent very objective with regards to this subject?

[8] link goes to a university research. Secondly, if you are interesting these events, please go to its own pages, since this page is about the city. you can just give a brief his.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The text on the Adana massacre is long two lines and a half, so it can hardly be called too long. As for the link you provided, it's blatantly partisan, and anyways, I don't see what it has to do with the Adana massacres. Passing to the anonymous's accusations, I don't see why being interested in ancient Greek history should make me pro-Greek, especially considering it often means passing one's time dealing with Greek nationalists. --Aldux 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont know about you but it seems rather obvious that if you are in love with Greek history and you are here to defend the Armenian cause that you are not really what one would consider objective! Greeks and Armenains have, since the collapse of the Ottoman empire, been singing the same tune and most of the time in unison so you cant really claim to be objective on this matter! 85.1.35.111 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, I don't understand one single word that you wrote above. Could you re-write it clearly ?--hybrid lily 18:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should work on your English a little...  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the piece because no sources are given. If sources are found, they must be independent.--Aldux 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are not the one who can measure one's english skill. Besides, it cannot a realistic answer for my ques. Ok, link will be added to page. --hybrid lily 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

why

well, Hybridlily added some links to articles, but some unreliable editors still persist to delet it. If you have a problem, dont forget that we have a talk page, this page. Otherwise, this revert war goes further. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridicilous

This edit war can go on forever if you are willing. Either that or we discuss what is what in these allegations of ethnic cleansing from both sides. Consider this a new white page, and post your sources for each allegation then we decide what we write, how we write and how much we write. Until then I say we temporarily remove current stuff related to massacres from the article.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana massacre/rebellion

I have added a few more sources, including a neutral one which refers to the event as a "rebellion" rather than "massacre" as well as a link to a Turkish government website and an excerpt from a book by a Turkish writer. I've made some additional adjustments accordingly for NPOV. I'd like to know what others think so far. SouthernComfort 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy is a paid Turkish lobbyist, how is that source neutral? The link itself is from a Turkish government site.--Eupator 20:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how Armenians know so much about paying lobbyists.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious - I found the article to very evenhanded and fair. He even includes a figure (citing a Turkish writer named Kamuran Gürün [9]) estimating that between 17,000 and 20,000 Armenians died in Adana. SouthernComfort 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy is a revisionist, he's just about as a neutral as Zundel is regarding the Holocaust. Ottoman_Armenian_casualties#Justin_McCarthy_estimates--Eupator 20:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comparison with Zundel is totally absurd. Zundel is a certified lunatic and Holocaust denier. McCarthy is an established academic. At any rate, considering that the views of both sides are present, why do you object? SouthernComfort 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV regarding Zundel. McCarthy is an established academic? David Irving is a giant in comparison. Why don't you present him as a neutral source on Auschwitz? I object to presenting McCarthy as a neutral source. Brittanica is neutral, McCarthy is not.--Eupator 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to come up with a neutral source that supports your contentions regarding McCarthy, because you're not convincing me. SouthernComfort 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

SouthernComfort , Thank you. However, I think this disscussion absolutely belongs to its page, Adana massacre. This articles is about the city, so I should delete some of it. We can go on our disscussion in Adana massacre.--85.97.165.87 21:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but considering the revert wars that have been raging here, it would be best to continue discussions that began here, come to some agreements and possible compromise, and then continue from there. There are editors who want this information here, and there are those that don't, so obviously there is a dispute. SouthernComfort 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do not delete anything until other editors involved here have chimed in. Thanks, SouthernComfort 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi SouthernComfort. I must start admitting I'm a newbie concerning Armenian-Turkish articles, so I don't know the standard thas is generally followed in these articles. The point is that in ancient history articles we don't put obviously partisan links, and certainly we don't put a thing on which there is an academic consensus on the same level, as you did, with partisan sources. If you don't believe me, look in Google Books Search and tell me how many awnsers you found for "Adana Rebellion"; the coorect awnser is 0. As for "Adana Massacre", I can give you a master list if you want, with the number of dead proposed by each. I confess I generally trust books far more than websites; an editor has to pay to get a work pubblished, and it is pretended that a historian has academic titles to exhibit, while any fool can open a website. While the PDF link you gave is very interesting [10], I must note you created a non-existent contrast between Mantran's book and the source in your link, and secondly you cut it short giving the misleading impression that it endorses 2000 victims for Adana, forgetting to say that the same source adds immediately after that most were killed ten days later, and cites a member of a parliamemntary commission of investigation that speaks of 19,479 Armenians, 850 Syrians, 422 Chaldeans and 250 Greeks. As for the last two links, I have no axe to grind and am neither Greek nor Armenian, but I think we shouldn't use links when they clearly have an agenda. All the same, we can as well keep them to simply record the Turkish POV; but it should be remembered that while every statement is always a POV, the various POV are not equal and have not the same academic consensus. Excuse me if this message is so long, and sorry if I may have been a bit acid; I know that your only intent is to put an end to this edit-war, but it's only that truth (or what academic consensus believes to be truth, more exactly) is not always precisely in the middle. Bye :-) --Aldux 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. Actually, Justin McCarthy is a respected American academic and university professor, so unless evidence is provided that says otherwise, I consider him as neutral as any other source regarding this matter. I understand your concern about the term "Adana massacre" versus "Adana rebellion," however as McCarthy has demonstrated, there are two POVs to this event and very often the deaths of Turkish Muslims are ignored. These issues are extremely contentious and there is, in reality, not much academic consensus. If there was, we'd have an easier time settling these disputes. As for number of deaths and so forth, any further expansion should be taken to Adana massacre, IMHO. However, I believe the term "massacre" to be potentially POV - a better article title would be Adana conflict of 1909 or something along those lines. SouthernComfort 23:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for awnsering. Personally, as an American academic and university professor, I have no problem considering citing his theory; but I should make clear what I mean by "academic consensus". It does not mean the universality of the accademic world, but a considerable majority, which leaves space for a minority to express an alternate view. In my opinions this is a classical example of accademic consensus: a majority expose the massacre view which McCarthy opposes. The fact that searching in Google Books Search I have not found one text exposing McCarthy's position, while I have found many accepting the massacre version, including, and this is important, historians who cited the event only indirectly as an example, while they never refer to it as being highly controversial. As for the title you propose for Adana Massacre, Adana conflict of 1909 is far more POV, because it exposes completely McCarthy's position. --Aldux 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But at this time there is no "majority" - most of the sources regarding Adana (and I have searched Google Books) are written by Armenian authors. One book written by non-Armenians [11] is also, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly - I don't have a Google account), citing first-hand Armenian accounts. This is the problem. There are old references from Britannica and Trotsky that use the term "Adana massacre" but nothing new other than non-academic works. SouthernComfort 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the title, mine was only a suggestion. However, I believe the title "Adana massacre" is still too POV. This is not like the issue of "Armenian Genocide," which is in fact a widely used and accepted term in academia. SouthernComfort 23:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

Since there are clear some Turkish sources that say some Armenian groups started to kill Turkic-muslim citizens of the city, we can say something like "Accoring to some Turkish sources, some Armenian groups started to kill Turkic-muslim citizens of the city." What do you guys think? Aucaman^Talk 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already included that wording as regards Turkish writers and the Turkish government. SouthernComfort 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Have followed from the side line. This looks like a good balanced compromise, that states both POV's. Bertilvidet 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay let's hear from the other side? Aucaman^Talk 21:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Adana massacre has its own page. go there and expand it. But this page is about the city. and the case is just one aspect of its history. I think it need not to be expanded through the case. Secondly, you have a respect for which you write, so I think you should have respect for which I wrote. As I add that Muslim-Turkic citizens were also killed by Armenians in Adana, after WWI. please look at its links. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana rebeletion and what TuzsuzDeliBekir wrote aren't parallel to each other. One happened in late of 1800s. The other happened after WWI. --hybrid lily 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The links u are talking about,TuzsuzDeliBekir,are not neutral. i am not saying that no Turk died, but u have to base your info in reliable sources. ...unless,of course, u want the Armenians to come over this article with sources from their nationalistic sites...i am sure u wouldn't like that, and in both cases there would be nothing done for the NPOV of the article. --Hectorian 15:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you meant by links aren't neutral, bu sources. Moreover, nobody is looking for nationalistic ref. I just try to tell you that not only Armenians, but only Turks died in Adana. However, some editors don't want to see that point, as you see. I checked the link given by Hybridlily, and I think that looks nice. Since some of them are Ottoman archives. If you are to say that Ottoman sources are neutral, well, I think you should see the link which are now on the page. The works of the historian mostly based on Ottoman and German sources.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok,lets make myself clear.the Ottoman sources cannot be considered neutral in this case, cause the Ottomans are to be blamed for the Adana massacre.make a relevancy with the Bosnia war: would u trust the serbian,croatian or bosniak sources?the answer is simple:none.btw,i cannot open the page.the link may be broken,i don't know...--Hectorian 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So according to your logic, Armenian sources should be considered neutral because they where the so called victims and just out of shear coincidence they subscibe to a higher morale standard? So Dadrian the biggot should be taken seriously? What about you? Arent you that Greek guy from Thessalonika? How can you claim to be impartial and whats your business on this topic? AFAIK, you are a Turk hater and therefore should be considered a pure and simple vandal with regards to this topic!

Are u blind or something?!read more careful what i wrote above.btw,u ARE a vandal with no name who makes 'grey wolves'-ish changes in articles--Hectorian 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to blame anyone, also gray wolves. Since this guy has no name. Stop blaming anyone for it.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Grey what??? Who said I was Turkish in the first place? Just explain to me, Einstein, how an ethnic Greek contributing to the "Adana" page could be considered neutral and not just a WP:VAND? And arent you the same guy who hangs out in the "Armenian Genocide" website? Its not that difficult to blow your cover you Turk hater!!!

Since he/she is blaming me for not been neutral cause i am a greek,then i can guess whose ideas he represents.afterall,he did not even bother reading my comment above,and started making accussations of me been pro-armenian.well,i have no connection with armenians,nor am i spending my time in armenian websites,nor i am hating the turks.how cheap accussations u make...--Hectorian 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

At least be honest, your rv's have appeared several times in the history section of the "armenian genocide" topic Right Here

of course!so,u also be honest and see what i reverted...--Hectorian 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

thats not the point, the point is that you deny that you have any interest in the Armenian topics and thats a plain lie!!! Your cover has been blown, Turk hater!

u talked about armenian websites.what i revert is the article of the armenian genocide here.btw,the way u talk seems familiar...anyway,i will stop feeding u--Hectorian 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

you dont get it do you? The fact that you are Greek and you frequently contribute to the WP "Armenian Genocide" topic always on the side of the Armenians makes your motives on this particular topic highly suspicious. Why dont you just accept the fact that you have a deep complex and cant stand anything that is remotely Turkish?

WTF is this site about???

I thought it was about Adana, not the Armenian massacres!!! Any mention of massacres should not take more than two lines MAX! It seems this site is being hijacked by Turk haters!

Please help

Can anyone report 85.0.89.21 for WP:3RR because I don't know how yet?  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise (again)

TuzsuzDeliBekir, why did you remove three paragraphs from the article? I'm going to revert, because people worked hard to create a compromise version of the page. How about this? The stuff that you deleted be moved to the Adana massacre? --Khoikhoi 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting your idea, but you have written a question. We need you idea. so anyway, I know SouthernComfort's addition to page look nice. As I said before, those must be put its own page. Agree with you, we should move them to Adana massacre. After moving we just need a brief info. that we already have. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved three paragraphs to Adana massacre.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I think we should add what happened to Turkish people after WWI. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In which article? --Khoikhoi 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In the history section like Armenian rebellion. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, what happened to them after WWI? --Khoikhoi 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I added and you deleted mentioned about them . Come on. go to history seciton.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How long ago did I delete it? --Khoikhoi 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If anybody still taking Khoikhoi seriously, is wasting his/her time. His prime occupation is vandalizing articles on Turkish subjects with his Greek chauvinism. Ormands

Compromise again and again

What is wrong with By the aid of France forces, some Armenian groups started to kill Turkic-muslim citizens of the city. [12][13][14] ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes the article unbalanced as the one about the Turkish wrongdoings has been deleted. --Latinus 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, people are not looking for balanced articles. What about Jews Genocide. How can you find a balance to satisfy yourself ? Come on. Also, I didn't delete all articles, I moved the article. Look at above, and tell me what you can see. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cease these constant reverts. A compromise has been already been agreed to, and you agreed to it as well. SouthernComfort 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SouthernComfort look at which I added. It is not the same thing that we dissc. We talked about Armenians in 1880s. However, what I added occured during French Occupation in Adana. So you can't blame me of not to follow what we agreed. Please, give a minute and see what I added.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

During the French occupation, a large section of the Armenian population was already evacuated in the desert to perish or killed. The Armenians that served in the French army during the occupation of Adana were mostly not from Adana but rather were refugees whom were rescued or volonteers from the West. When the French army left the region, the Armenian quarter was rased. To include some incidents compared to what happened to the Armenians of Adana during the genocide is clearly misleading. Fad (ix) 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

During the French occupation, a large section of the Armenian population was already evacuated in the desert to perish or killed. Could I ask for sources of your claim ? Also, have you take a look at the links provided ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tuzsuz, you seem every now and then to question the various consensa already achieved with your participation. This tactic is unacceptable. If you revert once more, I will re-include all information from the Adana massacre article back here. End of story. Respect your own agreements.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Deciding on which of my attitudes are accpeptable is not up to you. Well, I should say I participated but you didn't you have just reverted the page. Am I wrong ? Secondly, I am asking for sources to Fadix, why do you tend to feel that you should answer all questions ? Besidws decision of whether adding all Adana massacre or not is up to you. However, it will be a reason of a revert war. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

there is already a revert war going on, in case u didn't notice. --Hectorian 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I involved in this waiting? I never make a claim which I can not back up. You can always start reading: The Lions of Marash; Personal Experiences with American Near East Relief, 1919-1922 by Stanley Elphinstone Kerr. If you want more books, feel free to request them. Stanley Elphinstone Kerr discribes what happened there in Adana, what Armenians were able to do at best was to defeat Omar Bey's detachment but those were even not Armenians from Adana, but rather those returning Armenians in Zeitoon. But soon after that Ali Bey answered back and it was over. The rest of the Armenian population just vanished under the complicity of a local branches of the Ittihad, while Colonel Brémond attempt to prevent that with his declaration for sieging the place was a total failure.

I shall quote more about the claim of Armenians massacring Turks from Peterson book: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After

p. 93-94

Other Cilician cities well populated with Armenians-Hadjin, Aintab, Adana-also experienced siege, massacre, and betrayal in 1920. ...

At Adana, another hot spot, the French and the Turks negotiated a twenty-day armistice without any provision to protect the Armenians. Some weeks later, after fighting resumed, NER felt compelled to withdraw its relief workers, citing dangers arising when Turkish gendarms took the place of French soldiers. This was a prelude of things to come.

Do I need to continue, or perhaps do you want more references? The minor incidents against Muslim population were like a drop of water in lake Van. There is no single Armenian alive today in Adana, and now you are disgusting enought to include few incidences insignificant compared to what the Armenians faced there? Fad (ix) 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So, Tuzsuz, by saying that we are not up to deciding which of your attitudes are acceptable, you admit and confess that you are questioning the consensus achieved by all users (including you) for the second time. FYI, there are some editors who watch and agree or disagree. I've been monitoring this talk and the article for long enough. Your littering in this talk is far less acceptable than that. Fadix said the same thing: Don't remove only one POV to a new article. Sources about the Adana massacre have been well presented above. What more sources could you possibly need?  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

well well, looks like we have the usual suspects, Fatdix, Hectorian, Khoikhoi and Latinus from the "Armenian Genocide" topic who are, it seems, ganging up to hijack this topic. You fools are so predictable and pathetic, stop whining and get over your superiority complexes already!

Sorry, I forgot to mention NikoSliver, the Greek fanatic who regularly tries to sully topics related to Turkey.

That's it Salak, I HAVE only once removed something in this article involving the Armenians and have not requested anything to be added here, neither have I done so. I just clarified that given the fact that there is not a single Armenian recorded in Adana here and what happened to them, it is totally misleading to while including some incidence there, the more accepted view and disproportional massacres Armenians faced was excluded. But given that the troll you are will get feed like a parasit on others activities in Wikipedia, you will perpetuate like a virus everywhere you can make some noise. Fad (ix) 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Such words from YOU can only be considered as compliments. Thank you for exposing your true morale.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, tell me about! --Khoikhoi 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for the hijackers

Fadix, THOTH, Latinus, Khoikhoi, nikosilver, Hectorian etc. They are ganging up against topics related to Turks and take turns in a revert war in order to avoid violating the 3rr. These not so cunning group of Armenians, Greeks and their friends are racist Turk haters and are keen to sully any topic that is even remotely related to Turks. Please be vigilent on these serial hijackers, they operate in tandem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.184.88 (talk • contribs)

You are so right. We need to be stopped at all costs - NOW. --Khoikhoi 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting an annoucement about yesterday. Khoikhoian Genocide Khoikhoi and his Greek friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.184.88 (talk • contribs)

What a paranoid bunch of freaks. Ooh it's the great Greco-Armenian consipracy to send turks back to mongolia lol. Get a life.--Eupator 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

remember Atilla The Hun, Ottomans, Istanbul (1453), and others, neither armenians nor Greeks can send Turks to anywhere, even if Greek and Armenians come together for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.184.88 (talk • contribs)

One more and you are blocked for repeated WP:NPA's and possible WP:SOCK. Possibly permanently. These comments are unacceptable and I suggest to the fellow Turkish users to also discourage such language and arguements. If we start with this, then the whole talk-page will become full of "we-go-get-Constantinople-back-from-the-filthy-Turks" nonsense -or- "ottoman-empire-was-soon-to-be-governed-by-Greeks-so-other-forces-helped-declare-the-greek-revolution-to-stop-reenstating-fearful-Byzantium" crap, by Greek nationalists as well. I think we need to focus on real arguements and stop nationalistic propaganda of either side.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 13:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you seem to turn a blind eye to Eupator who, like in the example above, has not hesitated to frequently make racist remarks concerning Turks. Where is your supposed neutrality on this? Its a big joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.143.202 (talk • contribs)

No I don't. Just tell me where that is and I'll criticise that too (and get a signature to know how to call you).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I've corrected some of the internal links of this section, although i am not sure if the info is correct. there are gaps between the various rulers and rulers on same historic period, plus states that i've never heard of...Someone more specialized in the issue may fix them, i guess. --Hectorian 12:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You got me first Hector! I was about to post this:

Can someone correct this: "960- 956 Nicephorus II Phocas "? How can somebody rule the city for... minus four years? Also, there are more inconsistencies with that list...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would propose to totally delete this list, unless someone has some real info and fix it!Phocas did not declare any independent state in the region, but he was a general in the byzantine army. so, Adana was not any kind of a duchy or something...The date when the city was under karamanid rule is included in those that was under armenian...anyway...u ever editted it, editted a mess! --Hectorian 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

guys, why dont you try to add some info. instead of deleting them ? I will add the sources of the cr. section. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right Tuzsuz, only we can't find a source with the correct dates for now. Can you help? BTW, did anybody delete this?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will do Niko. There are some ruins found in capital city of Hititie. Historian made the list according to their founds in Hattusas. Secondly, I had a chance to take a l,close look at the ref. of Anthioch. Well, it is Antakya, not Adana. I will edit all the page tomorrow, I cant do it right now, due to workoverload. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i said to delete it cause it is a mess. of course, it would be better someone to correct it! generally, i hate it when i see so messed up edits...it seems that the editor was not even watching what he/she was typing! anyway, it would be really nice, Tuzsuz, to correct it when u have time. --Hectorian 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Settling this for once and all

TuzsuzDeliBekir, I have clarified my opinion on the talk page of the Adana massacre article, which is the same. The Adana massacre is considered less controversial than the Armenian genocide. An example is one of the sources, Mantran an Ottomanist is one of the very few Westerm scholar who still question the veracity of the Armenian genocide but still treat the Adana massacre as something that is not debateble. It is the only event which figures of victims are about the same from every sides in fact there is only two notable Western historians that I know of that have ever limited it to a rebellion and they are McCarthy and Shaw and his Turkish wife Ezel Kural. Even Turkish author don't even cover that event much. So not only limiting that event as a rebellion is to place a fringe position (The Sebrenitsa massacres are even considered more controversial than what happened in Adana) as equal as a majority view, but rebellion is not an 'also called' but a position of the underlying possible causes of the massacres, no one including Turkish authors deny the deaths of 20 thousand people, in fact McCarthy who is considered as the ambassador of the Turkish government position in the east provides the same figures of deaths for Adana than the Hamidian massacres of 1894-97. Here, I am not interested entering in a revert war, but it is not for me to justify my revert but you, because you are the one not respecting word conventions.Doing what you do is equivalent as to add in the Quantum mechanic entry 'also called Super String theory' which is plain wrong, because Adana massacre refers to the death of a number of people, which is not to be confounded with the different positions to explain the underlying causes, and the term 'Adana rebellion' refers to one of the thesis explain the causes of the massacre and is not another term to refer to the massacre. I have for now reverted enought, and I won't play the ball game, I just think thyat if you care for the quality of this article you will do it yourself, I am not engaging in an endless debate for something that is obvious. Fad (ix) 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot understand why you still disscuss it in this page. Again, I remind you that it is also a page in Wiki. Saying 'ohhh, McCarthy refuses Adana Mass. so he is not a respecfull sholar' cannot take us further. Since I could say Armenian sources aren't respectful at many points. Before we agreed, we had an armenian sources which shows that more than 30.000 armenians were killed.

Anonymous, I thought I helped you realise to not waste your time, so what the hell you are doing here? As for your answer, I repeat, while you are gratifying yourself of your English skills, you still are not able to understand what others are posting. Besides, the 35 thousand figure is not an Armenian one, various authors including in the democidal calculation work of Rummel we find such a figure. 20 thousand is the number of victims figure from Ottoman source only in Adana, the Adana massacre does not only refer to the deaths in Adana by elsewhere in Cilicia. As for comming to McCarthy, this is not my page, this is Wikipedia, I have not tried discarding him, what I said is that McCarthy does not question the deaths, he does not question those massacres, he only justifies them by proposition an underlying causes which according to him was rebellion, he is the only of the 2 Western scholars that I have ever read who limit the massacre to its underlying causes, even those rare authors questioning the reality of the Armenian genocide do not do so, and I already refered to Mantran, who is often viewed as the French McCarthy. Fad (ix) 17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, he is only one of them who refuse Adana Mas. I dont have much time to answer all. 'Adana rebellion' refers to one of the thesis explain well, it is supported by both Turkish and Non-Turkish scolars. Therefore, as a respecfull editor, I know that Armenians were killed and that was a result of a rebellion. Since they weren't killed without any meaningfull reason. I think the page should contain either of opinions. Again, if you want to diss. it, please go to talk page of Adana Mass. --85.100.77.217 11:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, here is where you are wrong, two Western scholar just notable enought and who have never published any specific paper about Adana massacre, can in no way be compared to the concensus, read Wikipedia policies, you can not present two different positions as equal, and in this cases calling an event from its underlying possibles causes is proper to McCarthy and the Shaws, because the rare ones that question the Armenian genocide still do not deny the Adana massacres, even Kamuran Gurun and Turkish scholars settle to at least 15 thousand killed. So, presenting 'Adana rebellion' as equivalent and as an 'also called' is to present a thesis on the underlying causes as equal to the massacre, one is a possible underlying causes the other refers to the deaths of people. Sebrenitsa in the published literature is more controversial, but you do not have such misleading characterisation. Wikipedia is not the Turkish government website, consider this. Fad (ix)

17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Turkish government website, consider this You might be correct or wrong, but stop talking like this.

What have you here, Anonymous, you were afteral TuzsuzDeliBekir third sock? Fad (ix) 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

It was me talking with you, Fadix--TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am not going to diss. with you anymore. Because, you are an hopless nationalist. Besides, there are no Ottoman sources that shows 20 thousand deaths. According to Ottoman sources 17 thousands Armenians and 1845 Turkic-Muslims were death after all. Lastly, dont be afraid of my english skill. I am still trying to improve it.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless nationalist? You mean Armenian nationalist? Nationalism imply that my nation is Armenia or that I am born in Armenia, which isen't the cases. Don't expect that throwing mud at me some will stick, this is not how it work in a platform such as Wikipedia. Comming to the Ottoman government figures, the report published by the new Vali and Baban Zadei placed the number of victims to 20,200, from which 19,400 were Christian, mostly Armenians and only 620 Muslim. It appears that the Turkish attack against the Arabs later was dumped as Muslim victims cause by 'Armenian rebellion.' Those figures were confirmed submitted to the French minister Pichon (AMAE, Correspondance politique, Turquie, n. s., vol. 83, f° 147). I also have pictures of entire towns burned in the fire if you want. Lastly, about your English, I thought you were the anonymous user posting under an IP, that was why I made that comment. Fad (ix) 03:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

== Khoi ? ==--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not interesting that I deleted the section of Ant. Since it is about Antakya. Take a close look at which you added as ref. stop adding that. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

After the Romans in the middle Ages, the city declined in importance. Abbasids started to rule Adana in 7th century. Which sources say that ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For population, web site of governership--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the population info. on the contrary, i corrected the number upwards according to the World Gazetter 2006 [15], whose info i just saw to be (wrongly) used in Turkish people. the link u provided shows a population of 1,397,853 for the Adana city, whereas the number u editted is about the municipality. the article is talking about the city, not the municipality(borders differ). --Hectorian 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at wrong section. Sorry. Could you correct the number, please ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in Turkey, population is counted in every 10 year. Hence, your addition is probably wrong. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about censa, but about up to date estimations. they may not be 100% accuate, but they are closer to the real number than the years-before census, i think. --Hectorian 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the declining of importance, but what is the "section of Ant."? --Khoikhoi 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ant. = Anthioch. I should ask you for you addition. Why do you add that ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it. Why did you delete the ancient Greek name and the paragraph about Armenia? --Khoikhoi 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made some grammatical corrections and a few internal links, without been sure about the accuracy of the previous edits. i do not think i made any other contribution now, but pls, before reverting it, do not delete the corrections i made.

PS:i haven't touced the 'New Ages' section, cause of the disputes. and also, i have to say (again) that the Chronological section should be corrected or deleted! --Hectorian 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Look at the Antiochia disambig page - it clearly says:

• Antiochia ad Sarum (Antiochia in Cilicia), now Adana, Adana Province, Turkey

--Khoikhoi

Hi all,

• I corrected chronology section as much as I can.
• map of Antiochia, according to map, Antiochia is absolutely Antakya. Therefore, it must have been remowed.
• Armenian Kingdom falls middle ages. so I moved related info..
• I added Etymology section and deleted section of names.

Happy ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,well done with the chronology section!Antakya is Antiochia on the Orontes, Adana is Antiochia ad Sarum. check the link Khoikhoi said above. many cities had the name Antioch. --Hectorian 09:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Surface area of Adana city

Mr. Bekir, may I please ask you why you insist on putting irrelevant data in the article Adana. I refer to the surface area figure. This is the figure for Adana Province and the data is placed on the related page. Best regards. Behemoth 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to write to you. The data that I added is not irrelevatn data. Since, it is counted and documented by local governer. Besides, I live in Adana and the city doesn't have adm. district like Adana city and Adana province. The place where you think that is Adana is known as Seyhan, an urban district of Adana. For futher knowledge, please look at geo-district of Turkey. I hope that above is helpfull for you to understand why I add the statement. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bekir, governor represents the central government in a province. A province (il) is an administrative unit. There exists no category as a city (şehir) in Turkish administrative organisation. "Adana city" means the area administered by Metropolitan Municipality of Adana (Adana Büyükşehir Belediyesi). Seyhan is a district (ilçe), an administrative sub-entity. The figure given at the governor's website is the surface area of the whole province, including districts as far as Tufanbeyli or Pozanti. Furthermore, when we usually talk of a "large city" (more correctly, big city or metropolis, et al.) we mean the amount of population residing in that city, not the surface area it covers. Therefore, the data given (provided by the governor's website) is irrelevant in this particular context, just because of the sole fact that article Adana pertains merely to City of Adana, in a more administrative and judicial sense, area administered under the authority of Metropolitan Municipality of Adana. Perhaps, you may well obtain the figure for surface area of the Metropolitan Municipality if you counsel some of your local municipal officials. (For comparison, Greater Tokyo Area, which is (unlike Adana) not organised as a single local admnistrative entity, covers about a surface area about 5,000 square kilometres.) Best regards Behemoth 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I dont have much time, because I am in my launch break.First of all, il and şehir refers to the same area. Adana Büyükşehir Belediyesi exist, because according to Turkish adm. cities holding more than 1 million citizens have to be defined as a Metropolitan Municipality. Thus, they have to have a Büyükşehir Belediyesi. Please, look at page of Adana, the city is composed of more than 15 small region. The central region is called Seyhan. For ins. according to my identity card, I was born in Seyhan region of Adana. Hence, you can understand that Adana is just the name of the city, and used to refer all districts. I know that above is a bit confusing. By the way, it is the web site of local governership, not local governer. They are also more different inasmuch as their responsibiliy and selection procedures as well. I hope that you understand why it is as big as does the numbers say. With kind regards.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, it's my opinion that the area (which needs to be cited) belongs not in the intro, but in a Geography section (which I've added). Maybe this article also needs an infobox, where such information as area could go. The dispute also seems to revolve around the definition of Adana's borders or as a city vs. a province. What the area figure refers to needs to be specified. If it's the area of the Adana province, say so and cite it as such. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The surface area figure IS for the Adana Province, not for its capital city, Adana. To claim otherwise is absurd. There exists a manifest distinction between a province (an administrative unit) and a city (an urban area). Behemoth 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes made

I made the following changes on the Adana page: I placed the gallery, to Adana Province page, since none of them were located in city of Adana. The lists of ruins and festivals (except Altın Koza) were moved there as well. A festival and a historical site, which were in Kadirli and Düziçi were moved to Osmaniye Province page. Also, a strange phrase ("Inhabitants of Selonica") embedded between Abbasid and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in the Chronology was removed. Behemoth 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)