Jump to content

Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Death marches to the Syrian Desert

The Syrian Desert was not the only place where masses of Armenians were forcibly deported, murdered or starved to death during the Armenian Genocide. The Mesopotamian Desert, near Mosul, in present-day Iraq, was another gravesite of the Armenians. See, for example, Kévorkian, Complete History, passim (pp. 244, 632, 650, 672, 674, 684, 758, 808). The clause must therefore be changed to “during death marches to Syrian and Mesopotamian Deserts”.68.83.217.103 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Also to be remembered is the reality of in situ massacres, such as the destruction of the entire Armenian population of Chunkoush (Çüngüş, Diarbekir province, 10,000 souls) by being thrown into the nearby bottomless chasm of death known as the Dudan. None of them had the chance of surviving for a few more days on one of the deportation routes. Diranakir (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Sad to say this article today is in worse condition now than in 2022, and in 2022 it was in worse condition than in 2021, and in 2021 it was in worse condition than in 2020. Not sure how far back we need to go to get to some sort of decent state. You get what you deserve (articles should not be written to argue against people who claim the subject does not exist). 92.4.23.2 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
You can suggest RS-based edits till you are blue in the face. This User:Buidhe editor, who’s done most of the writing here, she just doesn’t care. And when you repeat your edit for the second time, another editor, such as User:Firefangledfeathers, will pop up and accuse you of "bad faith and obscenity" (?!). This is how these folks operate. But I bet if you ask them, they’ll sure say that they consider themselves “professionals”…37.252.90.66 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Posed photograph

I have reason to believe the photo captioned "An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field outside Aleppo" is posed and not truthful. I say this because if you zoom in and look closely at the "dead" child lying on the ground you will see that she is smiling and is therefore not dead. Also, the placement of her arms appear to be placed to make her "more comfortable" during her pose. In line with Wikipedia's ethical standards I would like to suggest that either the photo be removed or an explanation be added to clarify this. I do not dispute that similar situations such as this did actually happen but only that this particular photo is posed and is therefore untruthful. ```` Kaboodilski (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No original research EvergreenFir (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Luckily we base the article on what reliable sources say (in this case the Library of Congress) rather than the speculations of a Wikipedia editor. (t · c) buidhe 08:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The Library of Congress simply repeats the information it receives and is not the original source. The caption was probably written by the photographer and not by anyone working for the Library of Congress. I was a press photographer my entire working life and photographed my fair share of dead people during the apartheid era. I know what a dead body looks like and this child is not dead. To simply brush my concern off as "the speculations of a Wikipedia editor" is extremely intolerant and avoids the point. I know that during this era, as well as, for example, in the American Civil War, so-called "hard news" photos were often posed but the photo-journalistic fraternity of today would never use a photographer's services if they dared to offer a posed photograph. All I am saying is that an explanation is needed. If this is the original caption then that needs to be added to the photograph's caption. I suggest you take a look at the German Archives (Bundesarchiv) and see the note they include in contraversial photographs. There's a saying, "Never believe everything you read". On the one hand you are talking about "reliable sources," which is admirable, but on the other hand you don't question if the information is correct. That to me is a prime example of having double standards. Kaboodilski (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this too. I checked the source and could not find this picture. I assume it could be from a film? Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of photography

This article is lacking important photographs. Does anyone agree? Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What photographs are you proposing to add? Any used in the article must improve the encyclopedic value (not for decoration) and have a clear cut copyright status. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Trials - Soghomon Tehlirian

At the end of the section about Soghomon he is widely known for his quote after the murder of the perpetrators of genocide, “I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer.” It would be a nice addition. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE in this article, but it's covered extensively in related articles such as Assassination of Talat Pasha (t · c) buidhe 10:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The events of 1915 as a period of inter-ethnic conflict

CLOSED
OP should note, this is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXING and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. See discussions at talk:Armenian genocide denial‎‎

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.


The events of 1915 were a tragic period in the history of the Ottoman Empire and its people. Turks, Armenians, and many others suffered immensely from the effects of war, famine, disease, and violence. However, the Armenian claim that these events constitute a genocide perpetrated by Turks against Armenians is a misleading. Instead, the events of 1915 should be understood in their historical and political context, where both sides experienced losses and atrocities.

In 1914, First World War, one of the deadliest conflicts in history, broke out, which threatened the survival of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire faced multiple enemies on different fronts, including Russia, Britain, France, and Italy. Some of these powers had been seeking to exploit the weakness of the Empire and to carve out spheres of influence in its territories since the 1870s. They also supported and encouraged nationalist movements among some of the ethnic and religious groups that lived under Ottoman rule, such as the Armenians.

The Armenians were one of the oldest Christian communities in Anatolia, and had enjoyed a relatively peaceful coexistence with their Muslim neighbors for centuries. However, some Armenian groups became influenced by nationalist ideologies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and began to demand autonomy or independence from the Ottoman Empire. Some of them formed armed militias and engaged in terrorist activities against Ottoman officials and civilians. Some others collaborated with the invading Russian army, hoping to create an ethnically homogeneous Armenian state in eastern Anatolia. They instigated rebels in major towns notably in Zeitun, Van, Shabin-Karahisar, Urfa and Musadagh, where thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians were murdered by the Armenian forces.

The Ottoman government saw these actions as a serious threat to its security and territorial integrity, and decided to relocate some of the Armenian population from the war zones to other parts of the Empire. This decision was not aimed at exterminating or punishing the Armenians as a whole, but at preventing further rebellions and massacres. However, the relocation process was poorly planned and executed, and resulted in many deaths and hardships for the Armenians who were forced to leave their homes. Many of them died from hunger, disease, exposure, or attacks by bandits or hostile tribes along the way. The Ottoman authorities failed to protect them adequately or to provide them with sufficient food and medical care.

It is true that many innocent Armenians lost their lives during this tragic period, and we should expresses sorrow and sympathy for their suffering. However, we should also remember that many Turks and Kurds also died or were killed during this time, either from war-related causes or from Armenian attacks. The Ottoman government had no premeditated plan or intention to annihilate the Armenians as a distinct group, which is a necessary criterion for defining an act as genocide according to international law. Furthermore, the term genocide is anachronistic and inappropriate for describing the events of 1915, since it was coined after World War II and cannot be retroactively applied to historical cases.

References

  1. Binark. İ. (1995). Arşiv Belgelerine Göre Kafkaslar’da ve Anadolu’da Ermeni Mezâlimi/Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives–Vol. I (1906-1918) and Vol. II (1919). Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara
  2. Çiçek, K. (2012). The Great War and the forced migration of Armenians. Athol Books.
  3. Çiçek, K. (2020). The Armenians of Musa Dagh, 1915–1939: A Story of Insurgency and Flight. Lexington Books.
  4. Çiçek, K. (2010). Relocation of Ottoman Armenians in 1915: A Reassesment. Review of Armenians Studies, 22, 115-134.
  5. Dyer, G. (1976). Turkish ‘falsifiers’ and Armenian ‘deceivers’: historiography and the Armenian massacres. Middle Eastern Studies, 12(1), 99-107.
  6. Erickson, E. J. (2013). Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (p. 119). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Erickson, E. J. (2008). The Armenians and Ottoman military policy, 1915. War in History, 15(2), 141-167.
  8. Gauin, M. (2015). “Proving” a “Crime against Humanity”?. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 35(1), 141-157.
  9. Güçlü, Y. (2012). A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire.
  10. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2002). Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918) (No. 94). Turkish Historical Society Printing House.
  11. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2008). The story of 1915: what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? (No. 113). Turkish Historical Society.
  12. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2006). Die Armenierfrage. Wieser.
  13. Lewis, B. (1961). The emergence of modern Turkey (No. 135). Oxford University Press.
  14. Lewy, G. (2005). Revisiting the Armenian genocide. Insight Turkey, 89-99.
  15. Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A disputed genocide. University of Utah Press.
  16. Lewy, G. (2007). Can there be genocide without the intent to commit genocide?. Journal of Genocide Research, 9(4), 661-674.
  17. McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  18. McCarthy, J. (2003). Missionaries and the American Image of the Turks. In Turkish-American Relations (pp. 49-71). Routledge.
  19. McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  20. Palabıyık, M. S. (2015). Understanding the Turkish-Armenian Controversy Over 1915. Beta.
  21. Sarinay, Y. (2011). The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915–16. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 299-315.
  22. Sarınay, Y. (2001). Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on the Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians–Vol. I (1914-1919) and Vol. II (1919-1921). Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
  23. Stone, N. (2004). Armenia and Turkey. TLS-The Times Literary Supplement, (5298), 17-17.
  24. Yavuz, M. H. (2011). Contours of scholarship on Armenian-Turkish relations. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 231-251.

95.12.115.214 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No. To start with, thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians were murdered by the Armenian forces during purported Armenian uprisings in 1915 is a complete lie. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a fact. It is clearly documented in contemporary reports. To write an impartial history of 1915, it is necessary to study the mutual killings.
  • The telegram sent by the head official of the Mahmudi district of Van to the Ministry of Interior on 4 March 1915, describing the Armenian atrocities in the region cited in Kamuran Gürün's The Armenian File,

Those who were killed in the village of Merkehu: 41 men, 14 women
Those who were killed after being raped: 4 women
Those who were killed in the village of Ishtuju: 7 men, 4 women
Those who are alive among those who have been raped: 5 women
The wounded: 3 men, 2 women

  • Massacres of prisoners and Muslim population in the neighborhood of Kars and Ardahan,

The number of Muslims committed to the guards of Armenians and massacred by them after being inflicted physical pains upon and struck by the butt of rifles reached 30,000; the Armenians serving in the Ottoman army were deserting and deliberately surrendering to Russians to disclose information about the said army; Armenians from the Caucasus were first allowing to be taken prisoners by the Ottomans and afterwards evading and delivering to the Russians the intelligence they gathered.

— Documents on the Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians, Massacre Of Prisoners And Muslim Population in The Neighborhood Of Kars And Ardahan
  • The telegram sent from the prime ministry to the interior ministry taken from The Armenian File,

Some of the Armenians residing in quarters near military areas are hindering the activities of the Imperial Army which is engaged in protecting the Ottoman borders against the enemies of the State. They combine their efforts and action with the enemy, they join the ranks of the enemy. They organize attacks against the Armed Forces and innocent people, they engage in aggression, murder, terror, and pillage of Ottoman cities and towns, they provide the enemy with provisions, and manifest their audacity against fortified places.

  • General Harbord's report on Armenia,

We know, however, so much to be a fact that the Armenians in the new State are carrying on operations in view of exterminating the Mussulmen element in obedience to orders from the Armenian corps commander. We have had copies of their orders under our eyes. That the Armenians of Erivan are following a policy of extermination against the Mussulmen and this wave of sanguinary savagery has spread right up to our frontier is also established by the fact of the presence within our borders of numerous Mussulmen fleeing from death on the other side. The government of Erivan has, on the other hand, resorted to direct acts of provocation such as the practice of gunfire this side of the border.

— James G. Harbord, Conditions in the Middle East: The Report of Military Mission to Armenia, p. 35
95.12.115.214 (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The only sources that could support your claim of thousands are possibly #2 and #4, but even assuming these sources are credible (which I highly doubt) they both appear to be talking about Armenian reprisal killings after the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia, when the genocide in those areas had already occurred. You appear to be reversing cause and effect.
This article is based on recent, scholarly, non-WP:FRINGE sources. Nothing you provided qualifies. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The document #2 is dated 6 March 1915, before the deportation order is taken; The document #4 describes the revenge killings after the deportation but this cannot justify the violence against civilians.
  • This excerpt is from the document sent by the German Ambassador Wangenheim to the Germany Foreign Ministry dated 19 May 1915,

On 17 May 1915, Van was occupied by the Russian army. Armenians joined the ranks of the enemy and started massacring the Muslims. 80,000 Muslims are now fleeing towards Bitlis.

— cited in Nejat Göyünç's Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler/Armenians under Ottoman Rule and Yusuf Halaçoğlu's Facts on the Armenian Relocation
  • The report dated 1916 on the massacre committed in Bitlis and Van by the Russian and Armenian forces

During the occupation of Van and Bitlis terrible cruelties were commited by Russian and Armenian brigands against the muslim population; cossack cavalry arriving in Bitlis, massacred muslim families and children fleeing the Armenians; hearing that the Russians were coming to Van, Armenians uprose and pursued the fleeing muslim population trying to escape and tragically killed them, massacred thousands of women, young girls and men among those who didn't emigrate; all the population of the villages of Zive, Mollakâsım, Şeyhkara, Şeyhayne, Ayans, Paksi, Zorâbâd and many other villages, who stayed unable to emigrate were all exterminated and not a single person escaped the carnage; on the eve of the arrival of the Russians to Dir, a town attached to Hakkari, Armenians made irruptions on the roads and massacred all the male Kurdish population of the villages situated on these roads and cut up into chunks with daggers and swords more than thousand small children the oldest less than three years and used the cut and broken bodies as trenches and ravished more than four hundred Kurdish girls, the old women being killed.

— Documents on the Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians, p. 41
95.12.115.214 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2023 (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.

Main photograph

The photograph in the main photo is really lacking in quality. I propose we change this. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What photograph would you use instead? (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I will list them here soon. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is one, [1] which is one of the most iconic photos of the genocide. Much more clearer than the current photo. Nocturnal781 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Ambassador Morgenthau's Story p314.jpg is very good quality and graphically illustrates the horrors of the genocide. This would have the added effect of making any denialists think twice before regurgitating Turkish government propaganda on this talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I oppose the one of Henry Morgenthau as the main image. It has a tree standing in the middle of the picture. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
If you view its commons page it is used on many articles. Clearly not that much of a concern. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
It is used in many articles, but not as the main image, about which this discussion is supposed to be. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
My issues with this image are
  1. It does not convey as much information as the current image, since it's just a pile of dead bodies whereas the current image shows how deportation occurred and includes perpetrators as well as victims
  2. NOTCENSORED urges using a less graphic image as the top image if possible.
(t · c) buidhe 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This one cannot be used. If Wegner actually took it, there may be copyright issues because he died less than 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Well it can be changed to published before the 1928 version for the license. This image is widely available in many websites and other similar sites that list it as public use. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
In order for "published before 1928" to be valid, you would need to track down an actual publication of the image before 1928. That would be great, as the image would then be usable in the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is misorienting readers

Many attempts have been made by several contributors on this talk page to bring to the attention of the editors of this weak article, which unfortunately only gets worse with time, that the lede, not to mention other paragraphs for which hundreds of other RS-based edits have been suggested, is disorienting in several respects. Yet, to this date, not even slightest improvement has been made. It is as if the editors are telling their readers: “you have to accept what we’ve scribbled”.

First, (and I’ll skip the fact of depreciating the term “Genocide” appearing in the former version to a lower-case “g” to avoid accusations of bludgeoning) is the clause “during World War I”, to which a clarification can be found in the description under the .djvu image on the right, which sets the date from 1915 to 1917. I’ve lost count, honestly, how many times and how many RS have been suggested here—all attesting that the genocide lasted well into 1918. I’m not trying to offer up my ancestors’ story as an RS, God forbid, but my paternal relatives miraculously escaped Turkish atrocities in 1918. My maternal great grandmother’s body was dismembered by the Turks when she, together with her siblings and her children, attempted to flee across the border to Russia in 1918 (of these, only my grandmother had survived). And now, editors of a “free” online encyclopedia are telling me, and millions of descendants of the victims of Turkish atrocities, that the genocide lasted until 1917? Ugh…

Second, the clause “the ruling Committee of Union and Progress” gives an incomplete and thus misleading information about the CUP because another Wikipedia article, Committee of Union and Progress, to which the hyper link takes the reader, says nothing about the widely known, historically proven, and generally accepted fact that the CUP, the culprit of the Armenian atrocities, was not just “the ruling committee” or “a secret revolutionary organization and political party”, but the wartime government of the Ottoman Empire. I fail to see how the editors of this article can disregard this fact which was acknowledged by scores of historians, genocide scholars, political scientists, and international lawyers? Wikipedia editors, do you seriously think that not mentioning the CUP as the wartime government, and mentioning it only as some obscure “ruling committee”, contributes to quality improvement of this article?

Third, (and I, again, skip the dreamed-up figure “around one million” to avoid accusations of bludgeoning) is there a particular reason (not being a professional editor as you are, I’d love to know) as to why Armenian males, many of whom were also forcibly Islamized and the fact, as you surely know has been acknowledged in many RS, cannot be added to Armenian women and children?

Forth, similarly, is there a particular reason why the Mesopotamian Desert, another widely known mass gravesite of the Armenians, as you no doubt know from RS, cannot be added to the Syrian Desert? I deliberately avoid repeating my earlier edits with regard to both points in order not to be accused of bludgeoning, bad faith, obscenity, and crap like that.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian

@73.173.64.115: I can't answer all your questions but I can answer a few
1) The Committee of Union and Progress being the wartime government is pretty clear from the article, the CUP being the ruling party during WW1 naturally makes the logical association, I believe your misconceptions arises from the word "Committee" which is part of their name (see seperate article)
2) forcefully islamized males are few and far between in RS-s I've seen, the numbers were not as large as the women and children, please do provide RSs if otherwise.
3) the Mesopotamian Desert you refer to is part of the Syrian Desert, the Syrian desert includes Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the northern parts of Saudi Arabia. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
1) For the lay readers, absolutely not clear. I’m aware, of course, that the word “Committee” is part of the CUP’s name, but it’s a part of their name as a “secret revolutionary organization and political party”, a definition given in a separate article Committee of Union and Progress. When visitors of Wikipedia read an article, they’re not expected to make “logical associations” but consume information which the editors must lay out in an easily discernible format. The clause “Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress”, with a hyper link to a separate article describing it as “a secret revolutionary organization and political party”, does not in any way give your uninformed readers the slightest idea that this “ruling committee”, “secret revolutionary organization”, and “political party” was, in fact, the official government of the Ottoman Empire. Besides, it is hard to imagine that some obscure “ruling committee” was capable of masterminding and perpetrating a crime of such immense proportions as the Armenian Genocide.
2) It can't be said that forcefully Islamized Armenian males were “few and far between”. I’m not sure what RSs you’ve seen, but there are, in fact, very scarce numbers given in the sources for Islamized women and children so they could be compared with males. It’s no sweat for me to provide RSs, but from my bitter experience contributing to this weak and selectively written article, hardly will editors make any edits. They seem to be pretty satisfied with the existing wording and content, especially in parts related to the number of murdered Armenians, the Ottoman Armenian population number, and the Armenians’ historical habitat which, as I came to learn from this article, was in some “Anatolia”.
3) The Syrian desert includes southern Syria, western Iraq, and east Jordan, but not all of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, as you claim. That being the reason why I suggested to specify Mesopotamian desert.73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian


Good article but there is a several mistakes. For example:
  • During their invasion of Russian and Persian territory in 1914, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians.
Article about Caucasus campaign in Wikipedia and sources in this article says "The Russian military campaign started on 1 November 1914 with the Russian invasion of Turkish Armenia.". Blubluman (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, you began to edit also earlier, but didn't sign as Davidian. Well, as before, walls of text will hardly get read and addressed. But you began to edit also on other articles and I congratulate you for that. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Motives

Isn’t turkifaction also a motive? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:114E:14D7:208A:E61E (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of the "Aims" section (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

On my last reverted edit

My last edit here was reverted by @Buidhe with the comment "Please get consensus for these changes" - here's a quick comment on my edit (to clarify my shorter edit comment). I changed the term "Syriac" to "Assyrian" in three paragraphs. The two last ones are pretty obvious as Remy (2015) explicitly uses "Assyrians", not "Syriacs" - so not quite sure why this was reverted. As for the first section, Assyrian is more commonly used, and the genocide is more frequently referred to as "Assyrian genocide", compared to e.g. "Syriac genocide". And Assyrian is also used here on Wikipedia as the WP:COMMONNAME. This section was changed here a while back by you, Buidhe, without any consensus from what I can find? The article should at least use the slash term in the first section. Shmayo (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

All Assyrians in 1915 were Syriac Christians but not all Syriac Christians referred to here were Assyrians depending on what terminology is used. Suny does use "Assyrians" but not all sources do likewise—Kevorkian for example uses "Syriac". In the Sayfo article I split the difference and used both terms depending on which population is referred to, but that is too complex for this article imo. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I get your point, but do not fully agree. Protestant Assyrians also lived in Midyat at the time. But that is not the point anyway. Correct, not all sources do - but Suny does so here when describing the event, and a majority uses Assyrian as the umbrella term here (...which should not be ignored, right?). Same goes for the article on Wikipedia. My last point was not addressed, but still stands. A slash term should be used in the first section, at least. Shmayo (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Any further comments on the above? Shmayo (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Will go ahead and revert it back then. Shmayo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Why do you keep reverting on the basis of "no consensus" (WP:DNRNC) when you are not addressing any of my points above here on the talk page? Shmayo (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I already explained the reasoning for using "Syriac". (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
You referred to consensus in your edit comment, but have not directed me to such discussions. I am questioning the revert of my edit above; "All Assyrians in 1915 were Syriac Christians but not all Syriac Christians referred to here were Assyrians depending on what terminology is used" is not answering my points above. Obviously the majority of sources speak on an "Assyrian genocide" compared to a "Syriac genocide". Also, the source used for the event described here in particular use the term "Assyrian" - then I think there should be a clear reason for not using "Assyrian" in that paragraph. Further, I am suggesting a compromise above, not addressed either. Shmayo (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I will add the slash term, as I suggested for compromise above. Will do the same in the second part as well, even though the source explicitly uses "Assyrians" for the event in question. Shmayo (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization."

OP has been blocked, nothing more to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This sentence is worded in a very misleadingly general way. Obviously, there is still an existing Armenian civilization (there is a country called Armenia!) Perhaps it should be qualified with more words at the end. For example: "This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in what is now Turkey." (?) Jplennon (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It should, and used to, say "in eastern Anatolia", as there is indeed an Armenian presence in the capital but Armenians were prevented from organizing as a community in the rest of Turkey, as explained in Suciyan's book. Now fixed. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
There was no such a thing as "eastern Anatolia" throughout more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization. What?? I’ve lost count how many times it was suggested here that "eastern Anatolia" is a relatively recent Turkish toponymic invention, essentially a tautology translated from Greek as "Eastern East", to replace the geographically and historically correct term "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands", the indigenous place of habitat of the Armenians. I personally offered a more neutral toponym, very often used in RSs, "Eastern Asia Minor" or "Western Asia". Editors, you're supposed to be unbiased. Why do you keep this cooked-up joke "eastern Anatolia" in the text?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Please see the Archives in this talk for tons of RSs using "Eastern Asia Minor" as the Armenians' historical place of habitat. Can anyone here explain why one toponym, "eastern Anatolia" used in a number of RSs, is given preference over another toponym, "eastern Asia Minor" used extensively in other RSs? Which Wikipedia policy gives editors the right to cherry-pick one term to the detriment of the other? Please refer your contributors and readers to that particular policy. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
I'm not sure where this idea that "eastern Anatolia" is a recent invention comes from. Read the sources from that period, including the Ottoman Armenian ones, and you'll see that it was interchangeably used as much as "Armenia," "Turkish Armenia," etc. In fact, it's rare to come across Ottoman Armenian sources referring to the region as the Armenian Plateau or Highlands (funnily enough, those are terms that originated in academia in the later 20th century, and even then to use it for the ancient and Bronze Age periods). Just because Anatolia means "east" in Greek doesn't mean this broad geographic region didn't have its constituent western, northern, and eastern ends. Note this is eastern with lowercase "e," not uppercase, which is indeed a modern invention by the Turkish state. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The fact that “eastern Anatolia” is a relatively recent invention comes from the Ottoman own maps and historiography, in which the term “Anatolia” until the late nineteenth century was used to indicate a territory of the empire which was situated in the western part of the Peninsula of Asia Minor. The approximate borders of Anatolia extended from Alexandretta, today’s Turkified İskenderun, and extending north-eastward through Marash, Malatia, Yerznka (Erzinjan), and Baiburt to the Black Sea coast. The remaining territory was never Anatolia; most of it was geographically and historically known as Armenian highlands or “Armenian Plateau”. Prior to the Turkification laws adopted by the Republic of Turkey at the end of 1920s, the term “Anatolia” referred to the territory to the west of the Armenian Highlands, which consists of around 60 per cent of modern-day Turkey. After Turkification, to answer your question where “this idea” that eastern Anatolia is a recent invention comes from, the remaining territory lying to the east of Anatolia was designated as “eastern Anatolia”, a never-before existed geographical toponym. Go read Wikipedia’s own article Place name changes in Turkey and familiarize yourself with Ottoman own maps on which eastern parts of modern-day Turkey were shown as Ermenistan (Armenia), here [2]https://www.armgeo.am/en/anatolia/. Oh, and I forgot, next time please don’t tell a historian of late Ottoman period to “read the sources from that period”, okay? Thank you. And also, since you're not a professional in the field, please enrich your knowledge on the toponyms "Armenian Plateau" or "Armenian Highlands" by reading Robert Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" [3]https://www.amazon.com/Armenia-Historical-Robert-H-Hewsen/dp/0226332284 from which you'd be surprised to know that these terms have not "originated in academia in the later 20th century" (?!). This said, may I remind that I personally offered “eastern Asia Minor”, a neutral term which is extensively used in RSs (please see Archives on this talk page for references to these many RSs). So I’m afraid I may need to repeat my question to which I received no answer. Which particular Wikipedia policy gives editors the right to cherry-pick one term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively used in the RSs? Please refer us to that policy. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
While it's certainly the case that this region was commonly called "Armenia" or "Ottoman Armenia" at the time, modern day reliable sources don't usually use this language as it is confusing to readers now that Armenia is an independent country. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a very lame counterargument. And the reasons why it is lame, to put it mildly, are that: (1) if you admit the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” at the time, then it must appear under that particular name in the text because the topic of the article that you had so clumsily drafted, and I’m sorry to have to say this, pertains to the period when the region was called “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia”, and not “eastern Anatolia”; (2) you chose to disregard many other modern-day reliable sources that I and others had brought forward, in which the region figures as “eastern Asia Minor”, neglecting these sources to the extent that there is no single mention of this term as an equally extensively used toponym to denominate the area (again, please take pains to re-visit the Archives on this talk page for dozens of such RSs); and (3) only one-fourth of what has once been historic Armenia is now the independent country of Armenia, but if you truly wished to highlight a distinction between the modern country and Armenia as a toponym designating the pre-genocide region, well, you know, there is this simple way of doing it: just put “the Republic of Armenia”, and your readers will perfectly understand that this name refers to the independent country. Besides, what does the name of modern independent country have to do with the article on the Armenian Genocide? But my question, and I’m sorry to have to repeat it for the third time, was not about “Armenia” or “Ottoman Armenia” or “Armenian Highlands”. My question was about the term “eastern Asia Minor” which, as you must know, figures equally extensively in modern-day reliable sources. If you know there is this alternative term used as frequently as “eastern Anatolia”, why is it that only “eastern Anatolia” figures across the text? Why isn’t “eastern Asia Minor” mentioned as an alternative name or used interchangeably in the text? Aren’t you guys supposed to be neutral? Where is your neutrality?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
I’m sorry. I didn’t hear back, so I have to repeat for the fourth time. And, of course, the purpose of repetition is not to suggest in any way that Wikipedia editors have difficulty understanding simple things. It is that for the fourth time no one cares to direct contributors and readers to a particular policy in this inimitable “free” online encyclopedia, which gives editors the right to select one particular term used in a number of RSs to the detriment of the other term similarly extensively figuring in the RSs. In particular, the toponym “eastern Asia Minor” is used extensively in the RSs to denominate the place of habitat of Western (Ottoman) Armenians (again, please see Archives for several dozen extracts from RSs to that regard). And the relatively new toponymic invention “eastern Anatolia” is equally extensively used in the RSs to denominate the area. I’m just trying to get an idea which Wikipedia policy allows the editors to make a selection in favor of one term to the detriment of the other? And if no such policy exists (I couldn’t find it, but you all are professionals in the field, aren’t you?), then I guess my follow-up question is: isn’t this a sheer violation of Wikipedia:NPOV by Wikipedia’s own editors?73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
The main area where millennia of Armenia culture was wiped out by genocide is exactly Eastern Anatolia Region plus some other places of Armenian settlement. It doesn't matter that the toponym is relatively recent. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Friend, you're not answering the question. Did you read the question? Specially for you, for the fifth time. Sorry. Which Wikipedia policy gives the editors the right to cherry-pick one widely used term to the detriment of the other widely used term? And, for the purpose of enriching your knowledge, please be aware that there was no such thing as "Eastern Anatolia Region" throughout millennia of Armenians' presence in their place of habitat. The place was called EXACTLY the Armenian highlands or Armenian Plateau or Ermenistan on Turkey's own maps. And since you took pains to redirect me to Eastern Anatolia Region, do please have a quick look at what the very first sentence in this article Anatolia states. Do you see what the sentence reads? It reads: "Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor". So I guess my question is, again, how come one Wikipedia article provides an alternative name for Anatolia, but you folks here stubbornly refuse any of the alternative, and much older and more authentic, names for Eastern Anatolia, such as, for example, Eastern Asia Minor? Curious to know.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Besides, since when another Wikipedia article is considered an RS so you redirect me to it and state cocksurely that it was "exactly" Eastern Anatolia Region where the millennia of Armenians' presence was wiped out? Very unprofessional, I'm sorry to say.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
And since you brought up this article Eastern Anatolia Region here, did you read this sentence in the introductory section: "The region encompasses most of Western Armenia (Armenian: Արեւմտյան Հայաստան) and had a large population of indigenous Armenians until the Armenian genocide". Did you? How about this section "Substitution for the name Armenia" in the same article? Did you take heed of it? What conclusion can you make out of it?73.173.64.115 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
The Armenian Plateau and the Armenian Highlands are larger geological areas than Turkey's Eastern Anatolia Region, and they still contain pockets of Armenian civilization outside of Turkey. So the sentence is still essentially correct, that the Armenian genocide ended Armenian civilization inside Turkey, mainly in this one region of Turkey. Your style of discussion here is combative; you might be better served if you propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B. Better yet, you could register yourself a username and start earning enough experience points to edit the article directly. Or were you blocked in the past for doing this? Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Your reply demonstrates how careless and inattentive you are towards your contributors’ suggestions. Long before you popped up in this talk, I already proposed to replace Text A: “Eastern Anatolia” by Text B: “Eastern Asia Minor”. Or at least use both terms interchangeably in the text because both are equally extensively used in RSs. Or you were asleep in the past not noticing this? So careless you are that you bring up the "Armenian Plateau" and the "Armenian Highlands", a term I’ve never proposed. And please show me a word or a clause or a passage in my remarks above that remotely suggest that my “style” is combative. If you fail to do so, you wouldn't wish to be called a liar, would you?73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Conflicting information in Introduction and Infobox

OP has been blocked, nothing more to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The introductory section of this unrivalled article, in para. 3, states that “massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors were continued out by the Turkish nationalist movement during the Turkish War of Independence after World War I”. Yet the date in the infobox right next to this section states that the genocide lasted from 1915 to 1917. Please help your contributors and readers understand: if massacres and ethnic cleansing continued during the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) after World War I (after 1918), what pocket calculator did the authors of this article use that produced these discrepancies in dates so we don’t buy that particular brand for our home and office use? Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian

There is no simple answer. The Armenian genocide happened in the mid-1890s, 1909 and 1914, then there were specific government orders in 1915 and 1916 which extended through 1917. More genocide was carried out through 1929. The heaviest years of official Turkish government action were 1915–1917. So the listing is not wrong. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, please try hard to avoid making yourself a laughingstock. The Armenian Genocide did not happen during the Hamidian massacres of 1894-1896 or in Adana in 1909 or, what??, in 1914. Most genocide scholars and historians of the late Ottoman period admit that these acts of mass violence were not part of the genocide (a few experts disagree, but they are in minority). I have no clue where “more genocide was carried out through 1929” popped out from. By 1923, most pockets of the remaining Armenians were eradicated. If you think that the heaviest (?!) years of official Turkish government action (?!) were 1915-1917, it is your personal problem. Dozens of RSs have been provided here to demonstrate that a large cohort of scholars consider that the genocide lasted well into 1918 and until 1923.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
The majority of RS acknowledge that ethnic cleansing also occurred during the TWOI, but don't count it as part of the Armenian genocide. Ditto for the Hamidian massacres which according to many historians had other motivations that distinguish them from genocide. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The TWOI started in 1919 and ended in 1923. But the date in the infobox limits the period of genocidal atrocities to 1917. So, I guess, based on your logic, in 1918 Turks, what, took a break from killing, gang-raping, hanging, burning and burying Armenians alive? If there was a continuation of atrocity, whether or not it is “counted” as part of the Armenian Genocide, then the date in infobox must state this unequivocally. As for “the majority of RS”, lol. The majority of RS acknowledge the number of mass murdered Armenians as being 1.5 million. Should I remind you what rounded figure was cooked up in the lede sentence of this article or you'll have mercy on me?73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
And I’m still waiting, patiently and for all other editors here to see, to be redirected to a Wikipedia policy where it is stated firmly and unequivocally that, in the case where there are two or more equally extensively used terms or toponyms in the RSs, you editors have the right to make a selection in favor of one term to the detriment of the other. This will be the FIFTH time I’m asking this simple question.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
The applicable page is WP:SEALION. 71.238.71.105 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS. If this bothers you, please feel free to spend your time elsewhere.  // Timothy :: talk  18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposing Text A to be replaced by Text B

OP has been blocked, nothing more to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I hereby solemnly and simply propose to (a) either replace a relatively recently cooked up toponymic invention “eastern Anatolia” with a more geographically and historically correct and more neutral term “eastern Asia Minor” or (b) indicate that “eastern Anatolia” is also known as “eastern Asia Minor” and use both terms interchangeably in the text of this unrivalled article. This proposal is based on the fact that much larger number of Reliable Sources (please visit Archives in this talk) refer to the area where the bulk of the Armenian Genocide had been perpetrated, using names other than “eastern Anatolia”, such as, for example, “Ottoman Armenia”, “Turkish Armenia”, “Western Armenia”, “eastern Asia Minor”, “Western Asia”, etc. I personally proposed but have to repeat especially for those editors who have eyes but don't see, to use “eastern Asia Minor”. Please visit Wikipedia’s own article Anatolia, where an equally extensively used alternative term “Asia Minor” is mentioned.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Proposing Text A to be substantiated by Text B

OP has been blocked, nothing more to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To bring the following text in the introductory section: “Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors continued through the Turkish War of Independence after World War I, carried out by Turkish nationalists” to conformity with the partially indicated date in infobox: 1915-1917, I hereby simply propose to make the following clarifying addition in infobox. "Date 1915-1917, continuing well into 1918 and even into 1923". I stand ready to provide scores of RSs supporting this addition.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Ok, let's try this. Provide some of the RS but without sources we can't change it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The suggested wording is self contradictory. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Self-contradictory is the wording in the following sentence that, I trust, you might have composed? “This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in eastern Anatolia.” Well, no matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine, based on my heavy readings into the subject of my professional interest and occupation, that throughout the more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization there has ever been (until the late 1920s) such a thing as “eastern Anatolia”.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
If there’s a will to improve this article, the wording can always be modified. But, I’m sorry to say, so far you’ve shown no will whatsoever to make alterations to your poorly drafted text, despite the fact that tons of RSs had been presented especially for such despicable text fragments as your voluntary rounding-up of the number of victims to “around one million” and your statement that the “two thousand years of Armenian civilization” were tied up to some never-before-heard “eastern Anatolia”.73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
I'd say that the also not very collaborative tone of your comments (despicable, poorly drafted etc.) do not encourage to take your comments seriously. I just agreed for reading your sources out of politeness, but also I do not believe there actually would exist sources for your claims. To your "never-before-heard" Eastern Anatolia claim I answer with three very common sources mentioning Eastern Anatolia or eastern extremity of Anatolia I found within the first google hits: New York Times Armenian Genocide.org and the United States Holocaust Museum , This does not encourage a reading to your other claims. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
My collaborative spirit, in case you didn’t notice, is manifested in several hundred edits that I’d proposed for this article, none of which had been implemented by your BFF editors. If my scholarly, high-standard, RS-based edits do not encourage you to take my comments seriously, then it is your problem, I’m sorry to say. And, it is a poorly drafted article. Many commentators on this talk page have attested to this. By the way, did you characterize their tone as “not very collaborative” as well? Sorry if I might have somehow overlooked your reply to them. And it is despicable to violate Wikipedia’s own policies. Is it not? Who gave the editors the right not to represent “fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” as required by Wikipedia:NPOV? What, except for cooked up term “eastern Anatolia” there are no other, older, more geographically correct and widely used terms to designate the area? Or except that lousy “around one million” there are no other victim figures circulating in RSs?73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Lol’ed at such “reliable academic sources” as New York Times Armenian Genocide.org and the United States Holocaust Museum. I’m in the middle of drafting a long list of modern, scholarly RSs that use toponyms other than the ridiculous toponymic invention “eastern East”, which designate the area where the bulk of the Armenian Genocide had occurred in more geographically and historically correct terms. As a courtesy to the authors and editors of this unrivalled article.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Stop right there, and bring on what you have for now, because if the first one and the second don't match your claims I'll likely not read the rest of it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course I would double check the sourcing before any approval. And I would strongly recommend to provide accessible sources, but it can also accessible over the Wikipedia Library. But I wouldn't approve of a change on a contested FA I haven't read the source of it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Armenian communities

Article missing a section on what happened to the Armenians deported to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See Armenian_genocide#Destination (t · c) buidhe 14:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Dissonance in the lead and infobox re: number of deaths

WP:NOTFORUM. However, I have partial blocked 81.214.107.89 from this talkpage as they have crossed the line into genocide denial. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The opening paragraph states that the Armenian Genocide “was implemented through the mass murder of around one million Armenians”. The infobox next to it, on the other hand, states that the number of deaths ranged from 600,000 to 1.5 million and is supported by petty one reference. The “around one million” in the opening paragraph, on the other hand, is not supported by any reference, suggesting that almost certainly it was arbitrarily rounded by the editor who drafted the article. The question again arises here, and I’m sorry to have to repeat it: which particular Wikipedia policy gives the right to a Wikipedia editor to round up discordant and conflicted numerical data, especially for such a sensitive topic as number of deaths during a genocide? This question is immediately followed by a suggestion so that some editor won’t pop up here telling me that I “might be better served if I propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B”. I suggest bringing the two mentions of death toll (in the opening paragraph and infobox) to uniformity by replacing “around one million Armenians” with the following clause: “[…] it was implemented primarily through the mass murder of Armenians whose death toll, measured by various sources, ranges from 600,000 to 1.5 million […]”. This modified clause could then be supported by tons of references which place the number of Armenian dead in the said range. Regarding “around one million Armenians”. Your readers most likely will understand that this rounded figure is the product of simple arithmetic mean that the editor of this article applied to the range of 600,000 to 1.5 million figuring in the infobox (here again the same question arises whether an editor has the right to round up discordant figures). However, the simple arithmetic mean of 600,000-1,500,000 is 1,050,000, that is, MORE than one million. The clause “around one million” has a different connotation as it also implies that the death tall might be less than one million. Whereas in reality, like I said, the simple arithmetic mean of 600,000-1,500,000 is MORE than one million.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian

You are right that the death toll in the info-box is incorrect. In 1915, 1.5 million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire. 700,000 of those were subject to forced relocation. By 1916, 500,000 Armenians survived, according to the League of Nations reports. In 1915, 150,000 Armenians are known to have lost their lives due to a cholera epidemic in the Caucausus. If we subtract those numbers from the initial 700,000, we can conclude that in total 50,000 Armenians lost their lives during the migration. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Bravo. Just keep telling yourself that crap so you don’t forget.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
It is a scientifically proven fact. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a-ha, among Turkish denialists. Scores of non-Turkish academics, genocide scholars, historians, politicians, religious leaders, international lawyers, human rights activists et al are just a bunch of dumbasses.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Human right activist and politicians cannot read the Ottoman documents, and they have never researched in the British, German and French archives. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
For that, politicians turn to state archives, such as the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and the U.S. Department of State Archive, for help with defining policy towards Turkey and her crime against the Armenians. While academics support this policy by researching all sorts of material in the European, Russian, and American archives, including the ones written in the Perso-Arabic script, most of which are denied access at ATASE. Myself being one of those who can read Ottoman Turkish. Chill.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
ATASE and other Turkish archives are publicly available to all researchers. Ara Sarafian and Hans-Lukas Kieser visited them and borrowed more than 8000 Turkish documents. In 2000s, historians from Turkish Historical Society researched the US and European archives and published their findings about the Armenian relocation in their book Armenians: Exile and Migration. The Western archives confirm the Ottoman sources in that Armenian revolutionaries staged uprising and committed slaughter. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Ara Sarafian would be surprised to know that he visited ATASE. As far as I know, he carried out research at the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri, not ATASE. Hans-Lukas Kieser, likewise, would be surprised to know that he visited ATASE. It was Hilmar Kaiser, and not Hans-Lukas Kieser, who conducted research in the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri together with Sarafian. As for ATASE being publicly available to all researchers, lol. Eugene Rogan, the author of “The Fall of the Ottomans” (New York: Basic Books, 2015) states the following on p. xvi: “Archival materials [in Turkey] are even harder to access. The Turkish Military and Strategic Studies Archive in Ankara (Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Arşivi, or ATASE) holds the largest collection of primary materials on the First World War [Armenian Genocide was perpetrated during the war as we know—Davidian] in the Middle East. Yet access to ATASE is strictly controlled, with researchers required to pass a security clearance that can take months—and is often denied. Large parts of the collection are closed to researchers, who face restrictions on copying materials”.
Wikipedia editors, isn’t this discussion about improving the article? I keep making suggestions for that particular purpose. Why is general discussion allowed here?73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Yes, it was Hilmar Kieser. Here's what the head of the Turkish Historical Society states,

In 1991, a researcher named Ara Sarafian contacted us to research the "Genocide in Ottoman Archives". We gave him permission. He took 3,000 microfilm or photocopies from the Ottoman archives. A German researcher named Hilmar Kieser, who was financed by Armenians, visited the Ottoman archives to research the Armenian question under the title "Armenian Genocide in Çukurova-Clicia Region". If we had not gave him permission, he would propagandize that we did not give him permission. He was given permission, and he obtained 5972 photocopies. I remember this number exactly because I gave them myself.

— Yusuf Halaçoğlu, 2007
81.214.107.89 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Dissonance in date in infobox and death toll in opening para—undiscussed

Two recent suggestions (see most immediate topics above) have been made to correct the dissonance between figures for date and fatalities mentioned, respectively, in the lead and infobox and in the opening paragraph and infobox. Isn’t this talk page intended for discussing improvements to the article? Well, for everyone here to see, no discussion of these suggestions has ever been started by the editors. Just a throw-away reply from (t · c) buidhe who, in a manner that already can be said is typical of her, has dismissed suggested RSs as “cherry picked” and “misrepresented”. The easiest and most primitive way to dismiss something that doesn’t fit a pre-agreed narrative, isn’t it? The reply states that “a reader who is looking for information on a broader event that they consider the subject to be will find it because the article and lead contain information about what happened before and after”. Well, I’m not sure this is a professional way to run an editorial business. How can an editor rely on whether a reader may (or almost certainly may not from the way this article has been written) obtain information of interest in the article? Isn’t an editor required to direct the focus of the article along a particular course and enhance the major points, such as mass atrocity fatality figures, drawing attention to places where the readers should focus? Well, what information can your readers obtain from discrepancies between the date in infobox and the lead and between the number of fatalities in the opening paragraph and infobox? And, again, why “around one million” Armenian deaths is not supported by any reference? Doesn’t the author of this unmatched article think that this cooked-up figure, arbitrarily rounded and unsupported by any references, is gravely misrepresented before accusing others of misrepresentation? Not to say that we still wait to be directed to a particular Wikipedia policy that clearly and unambiguously gives editors a right to arbitrarily round up discordant and conflicted numerical data.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Davidian

"Around one million"—semantically and linguistically incorrect

It looks like, almost certainly, the readers of this article would have no clue as to where the figure of “around one million” has come from since it is not supported by any references, although one would think that a statement about fatality figures during a mass atrocity event must be supported by solid references by a person who considers herself a professional editor. The only clue a reader may have regarding the origins of “around one million” is the range of 600,000-1,500,000 mentioned in infobox. But here we run in to a problem because the adverb and preposition “around”, according to Oxford English Dictionary, means “in every direction from a central point; on every side”. Yet the arithmetic mean of 600,000-1,500,000 is 1,050,000, that is, a figure that drifts toward only one, ascending, direction from a central point. Therefore, the use of “around” for the arithmetic mean of 1,050,000 is semantically and linguistically incorrect, and should be replaced by “more than one million”. This suggestion to improve the opening sentence does not in any way mean that the arbitrarily rounded figure of “around one million” is an acceptable way to present fatality figures. I have lost count of how many times I and other contributors urged the stubborn author of this article to provide the range and not a rounded estimate, especially since the WP:RS clearly states that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.” So, I wonder, how Wikipedia publishes an article, in the main body of which the rounded fatality figure resulting from a genocide is not supported by any reliable sources?73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Date in Infobox

Below is a list of selected Reliable Sources, as well as relevant passages extracted from them as a courtesy to Wikipedia editors—all supporting the duration of the Armenian Genocide beyond the date that’s been wrongly limited to "1915-1917" in the infobox. In compliance with WP:NPOV, which requires editors “to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”, please consider a modification of the date of the Armenian Genocide.

1. Benny Morris & Dror Ze’evi, The Thirty-year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of its Christian Minorities, 1894-1924 (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 2019), p. 265. “Between the armistice ending World War I and 1924, hundreds of thousands of […] Armenians were murdered in new waves of massacre and deportation”.

2. Robert Melson, “Paradigms of Genocide: The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and Contemporary Mass Destructions”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 548 The Holocaust: Remembering for the Future (November 1996): p. 160. “In this manner, between 1915 and the armistice in 1918, some 1 million people, out of a population of 2 million, were killed. Later a half million more Armenians perished as Turkey sought to free itself of foreign occupation and to expel minorities. Thus, between 1915 and 1923, approximately three-quarters of the Armenian population was destroyed in the Ottoman Empire”.

3. Ari Şekeryan, The Armenians and the Fall of the Ottoman Empire: After Genocide, 1918-1923 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), p. 47. “Despite the ‘outcome’ of the deportation campaign, in 1918, the [ruling Committee of Union and Progress government] still considered the complete eradication of the surviving Armenian population an existential matter”.

4. Alfred de Zayas, The Genocide against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the Relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Beirut: Haigazian University, 2010), p. 3. “Between 1915 and 1923, hundreds of thousands of Armenians would be systematically exterminated or deported”.

5. Uğur Ümit Üngör and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Seizure of Armenian Property (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 61. “[Chapter 4, ‘The Dispossession of Ottoman Armenians’,] will summarize the development of the genocide […] from the Young Turk coup d’état in 1913 to the fall of the regime in 1918”.

6. James J. Reid, “Total War, the Annihilation Ethic, and the Armenian Genocide, 1870-1918”, in Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), pp. 40-41. “Raids, massacres of villagers, massacres of Armenian conscripts in work battalions, and the deportation columns represented parts of an overall total-war strategy […] and directed by the Ottoman state during the course of the period [until] 1918”.

7. Grigoris Balakian, Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), pp. 566, 575. “[a]t the beginning of September 1918 a few groups of Adana’s Armenians had been arrested, taken to the mountains and forests of Amanos, and murdered”; “One time in the spring of 1918, when the homes of Armenians were being searched and those in hiding were arrested, exiled, and killed […]”.

8. Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (New York: Metropolitan, 2006), p. 324. “[a]fter the collapse of the empire in October 1918, [in] the [south Caucasus] region, the Armenians controlled cities such as Kars […] until the end of 1920. After the British withdrew, the Turkish army […] retook the territory. Because of the constantly changing borders, populations moved back and forth, […] leading eventually to massacres. In the period under consideration, the first wave of massacres was in 1918”.

9. Vahakn N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to the Caucasus (New York, Oxford: Berghahn, 2003), p. 360. “The dimensions of this miniature genocide [in late 1920 and early 1921 in the Caucasus] are documented in many sources”.

10. Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012), p. 113. “In sum, it may safely be confirmed that compared with the previous limited operations, these ‘evacuations,’ which began in the summer of 1916 and continued into 1918, were carried out with great brutality”.

11. Raymond Kevorkian, Genocide: A Complete History (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2011), (Part VI: The Last Days of the Ottoman Empire: The Executioners and Their Judges Face-to-Face), pp. 699-763, passim.

12. Tessa Hofmann and Gerayer Koutcharian, “The History of Armenian-Kurdish Relations in the Ottoman Empire”, Armenian Review 39, No. 4-156 (1986): p. 40. “Both [Turkish] campaigns [in August and September 1920] were accompanied by looting and massacre wherein approximately another 130,000 Armenians were killed and over 200,000 Armenians starved to death. This time, numerous Kurds from the Armenian Plateau again took part in the Turkish crimes of war and genocide”.

13. Ulrich Trumpener, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 268. “[t]he decimation of the Ottoman Armenian population between 1915 and 1918 through physical violence, hunger, and disease was not the unfortunate by-product of an otherwise legitimate security program but the result of a deliberate effort by the [Committee of Union and Progress] regime to rid the Anatolian heartland of a politically troublesome ethnic group”.

14. Keith David Watenpaugh, “Are There Any Children for Sale?”: Genocide and the Transfer of Armenian Children (1915-1922)”, Journal of Human Rights 12, No. 3 (2013): p. 283. “Using the history of the mass transfer of Armenian children during the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1922 as a case, this article argues that the study of child transfer and recovery is critical to both the history of human rights and a more sophisticated understanding of genocide”.

15. Derek Nelson, “Sins of Commission, Sins of Omission: Girard, Ricoeur and the Armenian Genocide,” in The Evolution of Evil, Gaymon Bennett, Martinez Hewlett, Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, eds. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2008), pp. 318-319. “The attempted extermination of the Armenian nation is about as clear example of evil as we will ever see. The population of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before the massacres started was just over two million. At the end of the genocide, about 1923, the estimates place the death toll […] somewhere between 1.2 and 1.3 million”.

And so that some editor won’t pop up here telling me that I “might be better served if I propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B”, here’s a modification variant that I propose for the infobox. “1915-1917, with less systematic killings continuing into 1918 and until 1923”. The wording of this edit, whether some might consider it "self-contradictory" while others see the date presently in the infobox as deliberately limited in duration, can be negotiated. If, of course, there’s a will to improve this article not only on the part of the contributors but also the editors. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian

While I disagree with Davidian on the terminology of the events of 1915, it is a well known fact that the Armenian-Turkish conflict encompassed the time frame between 1915-1923. This period includes the following events: The Armenian rebellion at Van (early 1915), the Ottoman government's forced relocation policy (27 May 1915--15 March 1916), the general state of inter-ethnic warfare between different communities (1915-1918), and the conventional warfare between 1919-20. I think this article does a bad job at clearly defining those events and should not have been made a featured article in the first place. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It is not “Davidian’s terminology”. The “events” of 1915 have been officially defined as genocide by 34 countries of the world, dozens of states, regions, provinces, and municipalities and scores of international, legal, and human rights organizations as a crime premediated and carried out by the Ottoman state. The Turks make a laughingstock out of themselves by advancing a sick idea that unarmed Armenian civilians, predominately peasants, amongst them women, children, the elderly, and the unborn, were involved in some sort of a “conflict” with the Ottoman state that possessed arms, ammunition, intelligence gathering, and all the means which could be used for internal repression.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
    These sources are fairly cherry picked to support Davidian's viewpoint and some of them are misrepresented. For example, Kevorkian writes about a possible "another genocide" in 1920, which makes no sense if you consider his viewpoint to be that the genocide continued after 1918 and just looking at the title of Sekeryan's book it's clear he perceives the post-WWI period to be "after genocide". Nevertheless I maintain that a reader who is looking for information on a broader event that they consider the subject to be will find it because the article and lead contain information about what happened before and after. If it were up to me, the infobox would be eliminated and there would be no need to have set and end dates that the genocide is defined to be, but consensus went against me on that point. (t · c) buidhe 00:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    Look who’s talking about “cherry-picking”… An editor whose number of “around one million [mass murdered] Armenians” figuring in the lead is gravely misrepresented since it is arbitrarily rounded and not supported by any reference whatsoever. Whose genocide date figuring in the infobox is supported by petty two RSs. Whose Ottoman Armenian population number on the eve of the war is supported by petty one reference. Aren’t you required “to represent fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, ALL the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”? Well, then be so kind as to honor your own policy requirement.
    I offered fifteen RSs for the date, out which you cherry-picked two, Kévorkian and Şekeryan. By the way, it is not “Davidian’s viewpoint”, lady, it is the viewpoints of selected reputable scholars. Kévorkian, whom you were quick to dismiss, on pp. 699-763 writes about the killings during the Ottoman military campaign in the Caucasus in 1918 and the murders and intimidation of which the survivors who had returned to their homes were the targets during 1919 and 1920. Şekeryan, if you cared to look at p. 47 and not the book title, writes: “Despite the ‘outcome’ of the deportation campaign, in 1918, the [Committee of Union and Progress] still considered the complete eradication of the surviving Armenian population an existential matter”. In other words, this author clearly refers to 1918 as the year when the eradication of the surviving Armenians was still high on CUP’s agenda.
    But what about other thirteen authors? Are their statements also all “misrepresented”? Or perhaps their statements simply don't fit your narrative?
    In short, there’s an obvious dissonance between the text in the lead and the date in the infobox. In the lead, your readers come to learn that the Armenian Genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenians during World War I (implying a period from 1914 to 1918) and that massacres and ethnic cleansing of the survivors continued through the Turkish War of Independence (that is, from 1919 to 1923). Yet in the infobox the date is given as 1915-1917. Are you willing to correct this dissonance, as you must? Again, I suggest: “1915-1917, with less systematic killings continuing into 1918 and until 1923”.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
    I don't know any reliable sources that would disagree that persecution /killing of Armenians did take place after the end of World War I. However, most sources on the topic don't consider this part of the "Armenian genocide" that started in 1915 (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Even if reliable sources confirm Armenian deaths, this article does not cite any sources that mention the killing of Turks. This is a fact recognized by all historians.
    Massacres in 1915:

    During the First World War, the CUP regime faced Russian political and material support for the Armenians of Anatolia, Armenian revolutionaries slaughtering Muslim soldiers and civilians in eastern Anatolia, and an Armenian uprising in Van that led to the Russian army occupying the region and appointing an Armenian governor.

    — The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars and Caliphs, Marc David Baer
    Massacres between 1917-20:

    One Turkish source gives the number 6,500 for the deaths during the winter and spring of 1919 in Kars.145 In a protest to the Armenian Republic on 22 March 1920, Kâzım Karabekir put the number at 2,000 in certain villages and regions in Kars.146 These massacres were then used as an excuse for the Turkish offensive in the fall of 1920 that led to the Turkish occupation of the region.
    British and German sources also confirm massacres against the Muslim population. In an 11 February 1918 report, K. Axenfeld, director of the Orient and Islam Commission of the German Protestant Mission, states that the Armenian government admitted that Armenian units withdrawing before the Turkish forces had committed vengeance operations.147 The British foreign minister, Lord Curzon, mentioned in a speech in the House of Lords on 11 March 1920 that the massacres carried out by the Armenians were “barbaric, bloodthirsty assaults.”148 Other evidence of these post-1917 massacres can be culled from the German archives.

    — A Shameful Act, Taner Akçam
    81.214.107.89 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    So what? No RS denies that Turks were also killed during and after world war I, but I don't see the relevance to this article. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    The article actually does mention post-WWI reprisal killings, saying "From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants committed revenge killings of thousands of Muslims, which have been cited as a retroactive excuse for genocide." I think the length and focus of this content is reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    It does not mention the massacres by Armenians in 1915, even though it is covered in RS. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Actually it does: "Reports of local incidents such as weapons caches, severed telegraph lines, and occasional killings confirmed preexisting beliefs about Armenian treachery and fueled paranoia among CUP leaders that a coordinated Armenian conspiracy was plotting against the empire" (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    I've checked the citation. Suny does not use the word "killings" in this context as a massacre against the civilian population. You cannot claim, on the basis of that sentence, that this article mentions the massacres against Turks. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, because in 1915 there were not substantial or large scale massacres of Turks by Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    At 02:29 you replied me that the article "does" mention the massacres by Armenians; recently at 05:33, you've contradicted yourself and claimed there were not substantial massacres. 🤔 Baer clearly states Armenians slaughtered civilians. It is not open to any interpretation. I think this shows you are intentionally ignoring the massacres against Turks to create a one sided narrative of Armenian victimhood. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    There were no wholesale massacres of the Turks by the Armenians. There were no forced deportations of the Turks by the Armenians. There was no forced conscription of the Turks into labor battalions by the Armenians which has come to be identified with their removal from active units, disarmament, internal displacement, and outright murder. There were no Turkish property grabs by the Armenians. There were no Turkish ancestral land grabs by the Armenians. The Armenian Genocide, premeditated and carried out by the Turks, was a catastrophe of biblical proportions for the Armenian nation. And you have the audacity to juxtapose this catastrophe with isolated cases of Armenian revenge killings of the Turks, mostly during the final year and after the war? Ugh…73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
    The slaughter of Turks and the Van uprising occurred before the government implemented the relocation policy. Those measures were a reaction to the security crisis caused by the Armenian revolutionaries. Taner Akçam mentions this in his book A Shameful Act. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    There was no “slaughter” of Turks during the Defense of Van (1915). Stop the indiscriminate usage of sensitive terms, especially when it comes to forced deportations which you call “relocation”. Go relocate yourself in a Syrian desert after a death march without food and water. Enjoy your “relocation”. I hope you'll remember the emaciated Armenians.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
    German ambassador Wangenheim mentions the slaughter of Turks in his dispatches. The relocation destination was northern Syria, which is a part of the fertile cresent. This region provided great agricultural output, and there was enough food to feed the Armenians. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Deir ez-Zor camps were deliberately set up by the Turks for the Armenians in the heart of Syrian Desert in eastern Syria, in the desolate barren stretch of land. Go relocate yourself there, will you? Send us a note about the marvelous variety of delicious foods there.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
    Currently, there are people living in Deir ez-Zor, and they are not in the middle of the desert. If you do research on Google images and Google Maps, you can understand that this is not a desolate situation. 31.223.61.74 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
    You are saying that Armenians were deported to deserts in Syria. Can you give me the names of these deserts and the source?After a quick research, you will learn that there are inhabitable oases in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, which is now the country called Syria. 31.223.61.74 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
View of Euphrates in Deir ez-Zor, which was one of the most prosperous Ottoman provinces.

Deir ez-Zor was an urban center where many Muslims lived. It is today the largest city in Eastern Syria. Armenians were under the supervision of Ottoman authorities there. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Which "most sources" precisely? You supported the date in the infobox (1915-1917) by only two sources. I, on the other hand, provided fifteen RSs (there's more), including your favorite Morris & Ze’evi, all testifying to the fact that killings of the Armenians continued well into 1918. Would you care to cite your "most sources" please?73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Yes, yes, of course. Especially under the "supervision" of Salih Zeki Bey, notorious for his cruelty and barbarity towards the Armenians. And of course at Deir ez-Zor camps, which were set up outside the town of Deir ez-Zor, Armenian deportees enjoyed delicious foods such as cooked grass, dead birds, and the bodies of those fellow deportees who were dying in tens of thousands. Indeed, a luxurious "relocation" place one could only have dreamt about. Send us a postcard when you relocate yourself in that desert.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
This story is not mentioned in any documents. It originates from the fabricated papers created by the drunkard provisions officer Naim Bey, who sold them to the Armenian journalist Aram Andonian. Modern scholars are in consensus that those papers are fake.[4] 81.214.107.89 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This and tons of similar stories are mentioned in witness accounts of the genocide survivors, as well as in the testimonies of the U.S. Vice-Consul in Aleppo Jesse B. Jackson. But continue to conjure up Turkish make-believe stories. It looks like they provide comfort to the denialists of the crime.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
Off-topic WP:NOTAFORUM arguments - please don't add to this
You called the place where the Armenians were deported a desert, and we showed you that this place is not a desert. despite your disgrace, you continue to propagandize. unfortunately, the stories you grew up with were only in Armenian fairy tales. The truth is that the Armenians, who dreamed of independence against the Ottoman Empire, lived together for hundreds of years, as a result of his attempts to destroy the Turks and Kurds in Kars, Ağrı, Erzurum, Dec. in the surrounding provinces. it led to his expulsion to more distant lands. you did the same to the Azerbaijani Turks in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988. You have massacred the Turks many times and Azerbaijan has shown the whole world the terrible barbarism you have created by taking back the region. in short, if the Ottoman Armenians had not been driven out. What happened to the Azerbaijani Turks in Nagorno-Karabakh would happen to the Ottoman Turks. 31.223.61.74 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Chronological and topographical nonsense—Armenian civilization in eastern Anatolia

This balderdash in the lead must be supported by evidence from RSs, as required by WP:RS, to demonstrate to Wikipedia readers that more than two thousand years ago, that is, sometime beginning in the 1st century BC and throughout most of the following two thousand years, there has been such a thing as “eastern Anatolia” in which the Armenian civilization existed. If no evidence of the existence of “eastern Anatolia” from ancient times to the present day is offered (and serious people have no doubt in their mind that no such evidence can be found), everyone here—editors, contributors, readers, and administrators—will see that Wikipedia is turning a blind eye on misrepresentation and falsification of chronological and topographical facts by the authors of this article. And so that some editor won’t pop up here telling me that I “might be better served if I propose simple things, for instance that Text A should be replaced by Text B”, here’s modification variants that I propose that are chronologically and topographically correct: (a) This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in eastern Asia Minor; (b) This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in the Armenian highlands; (c) This genocide put an end to more than two thousand years of Armenian civilization in West Asia.73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Davidian

I find it amusing to revisit this disaster of an article every year or so, to find the same discussions repeated again and again, with no advancement or article improvement. Issues that are seemingly conclusively settled are actually never settled and there is always a new set of editors willing to dig up the rotting corpse of the loosing pov and re-animate it and present it anew. The "Eastern Anatolia" issue (as well as the earlier mentioned issue of victim figures) has been discussed before, many times. Presumably some resurrectionist quietly reinserted "Eastern Anatolia". Of course there was no such thing as "Eastern Anatolia" at the time of the AG, and numerous scholars have written that the term was coined and propagated by Turkey to replace the geographical term "Armenia", and that it is basically a genocide denialist term (which makes its usage here particularly offensive). Look at any pre-1950s map showing eastern Turkey and it will still have the word "Armenia" (used as a geographical term) showing over Turkish territory; compare them with more recent maps showing Turkey's "Eastern Anatolia" region and they perfectly overlay each other. Asia Minor is also not an applicable term - Asia Minor ends at Malatya, hence Mitford's recent book being titled "East of Asia Minor. Rome's Hidden Frontier". But tell a lie often enough and it becomes true by peer pressure usage - even Armenia's education minister has used the term "Eastern Anatolia"; she tried to excuse herself by saying she was using it just because everyone else was. Why not just word it as "in what is now eastern Turkey"? 92.1.153.46 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There should be a not to be confused with the Hamidian Massacres template message at the top of this article

The 20th century genocide can be easily confused with the 19th century massacres of Ottoman Armenians Smahwk (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen the latter event referred to as the "Armenian genocide". Any sources for this? (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I have never seen the term "genocide" being used to describe the Hamidian massacres, however I think that this page should have a template message as a casual reader might get confused between them since both involve Armenians being massacred by Ottomans Smahwk (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Should I add this?
This page is about the Armenian genocide which took place in the 20th century. For the 19th century mas killings of Ottoman Armenians, see Hamidian Massacres.
The article on the Hamidian Massacres also has a similar disclaimer Smahwk (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition to this, John Kirakosyan and the authors of The Thirty-Year Genocide have also opined that the massacres were just the initial stages of the Armenian genocide.The massacres of the WWI were also concurrent with the Greek Genocide ,making the clarification more important. Smahwk (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I realize there are a few authors who call the 1890s massacres a genocide, however, hatnotes are only used if the article title is ambiguous, and I don't think it is because "Armenian genocide" always refers to the subject of the article. Even if a reader came here looking for an article about both the 1890s massacres and the 1915 genocide, they would find both of them covered in this article. (t · c) buidhe 15:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Complaint

As we all know, one of Wikipedia's goals is to use widespread collaborative editing to improve articles. I was wondering, as merely a contributor not a wikipedian, how one can request an administrative action or open a dispute resolution against an editor who, by her demonstrated unwillingness to engage in advancement or improvement of this article, essentially violates Wikipedia’s fundamental principle Wikipedia:Assume good faith and its extension Wikipedia:Attempting to Improve? Thanks in advance for anybody’s help.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Davidian

There are various places you could go such as WP:DR, WP:ANI, and WP:AE. I wouldn't recommend it, though. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
See also WP:BOOMERANG — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Have just heard prof Bedross Der Matossian in a lecture say that genocide scholars are in disagreement about the end date of the Armenian Genocide, or even if it has actually ended (since ongoing genocide denial, or ongoing cultural cleansing of Armenian cultural monuments, or ongoing ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Artsakh can be argued as being inescapably linked to the Armenian Genocide). But there is no such uncertainty among the "experts" who currently own this article. Gone even is the 1923 date that was formerly Wikipedia's official end date for the Armenian Genocide. Why don't we just simplify it and make it "over by summer 1915" and give this article the gravitas it deserves? As for Davidian's question - all I can say is that you reap what you sow - it is not the editor you are complaining about who is most to blame for the current state of the article, it is the many years worth of endless infighting and agenda seeking by past editors that has created an open door for the current editors. 92.1.135.157 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
What do you want it to say, "1915–disputed?" (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like it to say what it once said (like here: [5]), "1915-1923", with sources provided to prove it of course, and ideally with a footnote worded to explain that those dates are the most widely accepted dates but that the end date is disputed, again with sources to prove it. I don't know if there is a print source for Bedross Der Matossian's even if it has actually ended opinion. Suny's p330 opinion that the Armenian Genocide ended by "late January 1917" is contradicted by, I'd say, 100s of other RS sources, in fact by just about every book on the Armenian Genocide that I've seen. And he almost immediately contradicts himself by mentioning in the very same page massacres in Erzincan in February, Erzurum in March, and Van in April 1917 (massacres which destroyed the entire surviving Armenian populations of those places - in what way is that not genocide). I do not know if Suny has some sort of agenda or thesis to confine the Armenian Genocide to the period of the Ottoman Empire's administrators having direct control of that genocide, but, regardless, most sources I have seen does not make such an artificial confinement. Nor do they confine it to the Ottoman Empire's territory alone, but include territory occupied by the Ottoman Empire during WW1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.135.157 (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, the entire infobox, with the 1915-1923 date, was deleted at one point without any explanation, then, some months later, it was reinstated but with "1923" replaced by "disputed". I do not find a discussion about this change at the time. Then "disputed" became "1917" [6], and again I do not see talk page discussion about this important change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.135.157 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this change is possible, considering that more sources say it ended during wwi than after. (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Not surprised by your reply, considering your edit history here and not because of your uncited "more sources". I see but a single source (Suny). I doubt the second (French) source, which I admit I do not have access to, says the genocide ended in 1917 because I found a review of it that contained this text: "Finally, he analyzes the State negationism of the Republic as the direct extension of genocidal violence, tracing the lines of continuity between unionism and Kemalism". The majority of sources do not give a specific end date because of the uncertainty of what counts as the end. Vahakn Dadrian's "The History of the Armenian Genocide" has a chapter on the Ottoman invasion of Russian territory in the Caucasus that took place in 1918, titled "The Ittihadist Thrust against Russian Armenia"; and has a chapter on the Kemalist Turkey invasion of the Armenian Republic in 1920, titled "The Kemalist thrust against Russian Armenia". So this source DOES NOT consider that the Armenian Genocide ended in 1917, but that it continued until at least 1920. From the latter chapter here are some quotes that make it clear that the author considers this period to be an integral part of the Armenian Genocide. p357 "The top leadership of the Kemalist movement was animated with the same impulses of nationalism that drove the Ittihadist to commit genocide"; also p357, Mustafa Kemal delays the invasion because he is concerned that "a new Armenian Massacre" could make America turn against his government, but is eventually assured of the "improbability" that America will react; p358 "They [the Armenians] were trapped in the clutches of a new conspiracy of genocide"; also p358, the author cites Turkish government invasion instructions that "Armenia be annihilated politically and physically" (the original Turkish is also given), in the rest of the chapter Dadrian goes on to show that this comprised "the recurrence of the World War 1 Ittihadist pattern of genocidal intent" (quote also from p358). And a final quote from the book, to open up discussion on the other lies that have been inserted into the infobox, namely "Location - Ottoman Empire; Target - Ottoman Armenians". On p433 "What needs to be underscored as a central feature is the glaring evidence of Ottoman Turkish determination to maximize the genocidal sweep against the Armenians - beyond the geographical confines of the Ottoman Empire and consistent with the possibilities and opportunities emerging from the conditions of warfare". Peter Balakian also includes the years 1918 and 1920 as part of the period of the Armenian Genocide. In his "The Burning Tigris: the Armenian Genocide", on p318, "With the bulk of the genocidal killing done, Turkey was still not finished with Armenia. In the spring of 1918, and then in the fall of 1920, first the Ottoman army and then the new Kemalist army invaded the new republic of Armenia". Finally, though Buidhe may feint lack of knowledge of it, there is the widely known and widely-accepted "ten stages of genocide" list, in which the final stage is given as "Denial". The perpetrator state still denies the Armenian Genocide (there is as whole Wikipedia article to prove it), and so based on this classification we are still within the final stage of the Armenian Genocide (i.e., it has not ended). I have already cited prof Bedross Der Matossian saying the same thing in a lecture. He probably also says it in print form in the just published "Denial of Genocides in the Twenty-First Century" (Univ. of Nebraska Press, 2023), edited by Bedross Der Matossian. For these reasons I now think the previous "1915 - disputed" wording, wording that was erased by Buidhe without any talk page discussion, would be the best and most accurate wording to have, with the reasons for saying "disputed" being explained in detail in a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.135.157 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Raymond Kevorkian also unequivocally writes that the massacres and ethnic cleansing committed during the 1920 invasion of the Republic of Armenia were part of the Armenian Genocide. From "The Armenian Genocide, a Complete History", page 804, "The Kemalist commitment to genocidal action against Caucasian Armenians marked the passage from witness of the original Young Turk movement to the new unionist wave unified by Mustafa Kemal" and "By offering itself to the Bolsheviks, Caucasian Armenia escaped a third phase of the genocide". Taner Akcam, in "A shameful Act" also considers there was a continuation of the genocide in the post war period. On p114, he writes "After the war, despite their defeat, the Ottomans still believed that the Armenians were an obstacle and should be eliminated, policies that were clearly stated at an Istanbul meeting held by the Turkish Hearth Association on 18 February 1920. The newly established government in Ankara continued this same policy after 1919."
I am starting to think that a complaint against Buidhe regarding his editing behaviour on this article is justifiable. Although Buidhe had made hundreds of separate edits to this article, none of Buidhe's edits have ever been preceded by, or accompanied by, any talk page justification or explanation or discussion, even if the edit has resulted in a very significant content change (such an the end date of the genocide being changed by Buidhe from "1915 - disputed" to "1915 - 1917"). In fact, the entire talk page presence here by Buidhe has consisted of Buidhe claiming gatekeeper/ownership control over an extended-protected article and saying "no" to everything other editors might suggest as content changes or additions. In both this thread and the thread titled "Date in infobox" the responses by Buidhe to the genocide end date issue are identical in their brevity, their dismissive and disrespectful delivery, and their complete refusal to acknowledge the numerous sources that have been presented. The responses are also identical in content: for this thread it is "more sources say it ended during wwi than after", for the former it is "most sources on the topic don't consider this part of the "Armenian genocide" that started in 1915" - yet Buidhe continues to present no sources to support that assertion! The fact about the sources is that the vast majority do not give an end date to the Armenian Genocide, but almost all contain details of events of 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 in their accounts of the Armenian Genocide. Set against these, Suny, in the single source that has been presented to support a date of 1917, is an extreme minority viewpoint in both giving a date and making it 1917. This is why I again suggest that "1915 - disputed" would be the most accurate wording. 2.103.199.143 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Admin note: I am starting to think that you need to be warned for personal attacks, and inappropriate focus on individual editors. Please focus on finding consensus, and not on other editors. Editors are not obligated to respond to you. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course I realised before I posted anything here that Buidhe is hardcore Wikipedia project-friendly, ticking all the boxes and then some. However, Buidhe has twice said the majority of sources give 1917 as an end date - but he has not cited those sources. Other editors have cited many sources that do not agree with 1917 (and with Buidhe curtly dismissing one editor's list as "cherry picking"). What should be made of the lack of response to that request for sources? As you say, editors are not obliged to reply - but does the lack of a reply and lack of sources to support the initial assertion, mean that Buidhe's opinion on this specific content issue can now be dismissed? Since you have brought the subject of consensus up, do you disagree that Buidhe's entire presence within this talk page has been to say "no" to the content suggestions of other editors; and that he has never, not even once, made any content suggestions or attempted to gain any sort of consensus on this talk page before making his own article content changes? Is that ideal editing behaviour? No consensus agreed to the end date change made by Buidhe that is the subject of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.199.143 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There are indeed many sources that give 1915-1917 or similar dates for the genocide.

  • Suny 2015 as cited
  • Borzarslan et al. 2015 as cited
  • Akcam 2012 and Kevorkian 2011 (look at the table of contents for either. Additionally, in a later publication Kevorkian refers to "another genocide" in the context of the Turkish invasion of Armenia in 1920, which would not make sense unless the first genocide was considered to have ended)
  • de Waal 2015 (search "1916" in the book)
  • Nichanian 2015 (gives 1915-1918)

These are just taken from sources already cited in the article. I understand that arguments have been made for other dates, up to and including the present (btw this is not Der Matossian's idea, if he supports it he probably lifted it from Talin Suciyan). There is also minority view that puts the start date in 1914 or earlier. This is why I would support removing the infobox. However, if we're going to have an infobox, I don't think it helps our readers to say that the dates are disputed when the majority of RS place them during WWI. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The CUP regrouped as the Turkish Nationalist Movement?

This article states:

The CUP regrouped as the Turkish nationalist movement to fight the Turkish War of Independence, relying on the support of perpetrators of the genocide and those who had profited from it.

Yet the actual page for the CUP appears to show the situation was much more complicated:

Though most Unionists chose to rally around Mustafa Kemal and his Turkish national movement against the government in Constantinople and renew war against the Allies, some Unionists were dissatisfied and Kara Kemal [tr] briefly revived the CUP in January 1922. Unionist journalist Hüseyin Cahit declared Union and Progress would not contest the 1923 general election for the Ankara based parliament against Atatürk's People's Party. However, dissatisfied with the secularist policies the Republicans were pushing through, such as the abolition of the Caliphate, Kara Kemal's CUP supported the creation of the Progressive Republican Party, which splintered from the People's Party (which renamed itself to the Republican People's Party). The Progressive Republican Party and the remaining nonconforming Unionists were purged for good following the İzmir Affair, an alleged assassination attempt against Mustafa Kemal. Dr. Nazım, Mehmed Cavid, and İsmail Canbulat [tr] met their ends in the subsequent Independence Tribunals with Kara Kemal committing suicide before his execution. With opposition quashed, Atatürk consolidated his power and continued ruling Turkey until his death in 1938.

This should be cleared up so that we have no contradictions. In any case, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of sources state that Mustafa Kemal's national movement was rather organic and that the CUP did not just become the Turkish National Movement. Evaporation123 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph is entirely unsourced in the CUP article so it counts for absolutely nothing. Besides, this is a matter that only needs one sentence in this article, what you've posted would be far too much detail even if it were supported adequately by FA-level citations. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
It is sourced though. Wikipedia doesn't let you copy and paste citations across pages, so check the original page and you'll see. Evaporation123 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, I can see that there are two sources cited partway through the paragraph that do not support all the content, but neither of them are acceptable in a FA on a controversial history topic anyway so the distinction is moot. BTW you can copy the citations, you can easily view and copy the wikitext using source editing mode. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Turkish version of this article

In the Turkish version of this article the "genocide" is downgraded to a "massacre", and it is also claimed that there "are doubts about the impartiality of this article".

How can a negationist description of such a serious crime against humanity be accepted on Wikipedia? 95.182.182.30 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't have any power over the Turkish Wikipedia, but interested editors might choose to head over there and improve the article, presuming their Turkish language skills are strong enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article can be translated into Turkish if anyone has the linguistic skills. I bet it has already been translated into some other languages and posted at other Wikipedias. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Read do not create wp:hoaxes. 176.219.154.227 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Sarikamish Contradiction

It seems this article and Battle of Sarikamish can't agree on whether it's been verified that Enver Pasha publicly blamed the Armenians for his defeat in that battle or not.

I have absolutely no opinion on the subject, and don't wish to stick my foot in a tarpit, but whichever one it is, the two articles need to express the same conclusion, or even a lack thereof. Ipatrol (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Operation Nemesis

I added a section in the Aftermath on Operation Nemesis, both how it killed the top perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, but also that the Turkish government provided compensation to the families of the the perpetrators and how some perpetrators managed to evade justice. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Two paragraphs are definitely WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in sourcing

I am referring to the following sentence in the Background section:

"Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish and Kurdish Muslim and Greek Orthodox Christian neighbors."

An editor seems to have mistakenly copied the source used for the next statement and used it here as well. The assessment is more or less directly taken out of Suny's They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else, but also cites Kévorkian who in the cited work opposes the idea that Armenians were "a minority" in the Armenian Highlands. The cited page does not contain any information about this. It's kinda ironic to make a statement like this that so much of the literature on the Armenian Genocide disagrees with and then citing one of those works by mistake, isn't it? AlenVaneci (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the citations that didn't contain the information, and added a new one, from one of the most reliable population censuses taken before the genocide. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox info

Buidhe just removed the infobox. I'm generally supportive of infoboxes, but I think there is a valid argument that most of the information in this infobox is oversimplified.

Most of the content of the infobox probably still belongs in the article. I'm preserving a copy of the infobox below so we ensure none of the substantive information about the genocide is lost from article.

Removed infobox
Armenian genocide
Part of World War I
see caption
Column of Armenian deportees guarded by gendarmes in Harput vilayet
LocationOttoman Empire
Date1915–1917[1][2]
TargetOttoman Armenians
Attack type
Genocide, death march, forced Islamization
Deaths600,000–1.5 million[3]
PerpetratorsCommittee of Union and Progress

References

  1. ^ Suny 2015, pp. 245, 330.
  2. ^ Bozarslan et al. 2015, p. 187.
  3. ^ Morris & Ze'evi 2019, p. 1.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

See the above debate about dates.
Another concern I have is about the perpetrator section, although it was certainly organized by the CUP there were a variety of perpetrators that don't fit neatly into an infobox slot.
I don't know if "attack type" is particularly helpful information, especially since it repeats what is already in the lead.
The genocide only took place in specific parts of the Ottoman Empire and arguably also took place in adjoining areas of Russia and Iran (which partly depends on which dates are included) thus perhaps including some victims who were actually Russian or Iranian Armenians. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This removal is not consistent with other pages related to genocides I have gone through most genocide pages and this is the only one that doesn’t have a info box. Farrafiq (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Pathetic sources

"The CUP allowed Armenian women to marry into Muslim households, as these women had to convert to Islam and would lose their Armenian identity."

The sources used in this article are so weak and unreliable, the authors did not even know Hanefi school of Islam (which Turks belong to) already allowed marriage between Muslim men and Christian (Armenian) women. 84.51.29.38 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the phrasing could be improved but according to Islam (to my understanding) the marriage itself affects conversion such that the women would now be viewed socially, legally, etc. as Muslims. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
No there is no conversion. According to Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, Muslim men can marry with Christian/Jewish (people of the book) women. Husband cannot even bar the wife from going to Church/Synagog. Children from these marriage will viewed as Muslims.
This is a starred article but it is full of unreliable sources, cycle references and conspiracy theories. 84.51.29.38 (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we revert the page's template back?

back to the one where it had the information about the genocide on the right? Peachy1621 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal from "Rescue of Armenians during the Genocide"

I propose merging the information from Rescue of Armenians during the Genocide to this page.

I think the content in other page is highly relevant but also so short that it might as well just be included here. That work might need to occur alongside analysis of the source problem flags that exist on the "rescue of..." page. Armeym (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is a featured article, it already contains all the content that it should. A better solution would be expanding the rescue article. I recommend Mouradian's The Resistance Network as a source. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose However it must be merged into Rescue of Armenians during the Armenian genocide, since they deal with the same topic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1915 Newspaper Source

When I checked the newspaper source mentioned in the article and book, I do not see anything related to this topic in both morning and evening editions dated 4 May 1915. So, this source should be removed.

Here are links of those editions, you can check:

1, Morning: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/newspaper/item/SXUBVSELYJ6H5T7YE27H43WICSTZQOSZ?issuepage=1

2, Evening: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/newspaper/item/G3BAA2LRGIH2UGC3ROEJKCI3MR4DH36F?issuepage=1 Spiny14 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The quote is real as you can easily verify with Google, it's even the title of of a Swedish book. It's possible that the date is wrong (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
According to Ihrig, the quote is from "Wilhelm Feldmann, “Unterredung mit Talaat Bei: Die Völker des türkischen Reiches im Kriege,” Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1915."
However, there seems to be a typo as it was actually 1916:
  • Bozarslan et al. says it was in "May 1916" but don't provide a date, they got it indirectly.
  • Gunter Levy (not really a RS), puts it on 5 May 1916[7]
  • There's another source that says 4 May 1916[8]
  • Hovannisian says 1916[9]
So I will change it to say May 1916
subsequent to me writing the article, this exact quote seems to have been lifted repeatedly by various students and newspapers. I guess it was the right decision to block quote it. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Update:I found the interview in the Berliner Tageblatt und Handels-Zeitung, Morgen-Ausgabe Donnerstag, 04.05.1916. p. 4 (upper right corner) (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Second most studied" genocide

This is indeed a very strong claim that I cannot confirm in other sources. (If you look at Google scholar results, there are significantly more for the Rwandan genocide than the Armenian genocide.) Regardless, we're going to need a stronger source than one book by Bartrop to include this claim. I wonder how he arrived at this conclusion, or if he just cites Rummel from 1998. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I'm removing it. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Paul Bartrop is a legitimate source as a historian, looking on Google Scholar alone is original research in of itself to deny what something may be. Is there any actual source which states that the Rwandan genocide is studied more than the Armenian genocide? Reaper1945 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of genocides in history, so the claim of "second most studied" requires more support than you have shown. WP:REDFLAG
If only one recent source says it, regardless of whether I thought it was true, I would have to argue for exclusion because of WP:UNDUE. Everything in this article could have several citations behind it! (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide death toll infobox

@Buidhe I saw you put the range, but I put "around 1 million" to similarly match the one for the Holocaust. A book by historian [[Richard G. Hovannisian]] puts the toll between 600,000 to 2 million, with a United Nations report putting it at around 1 million. Should the whole range be put or an approximate value? Reaper1945 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We had discussion about this a while back, and there was consensus to put the 600,000 to 1.5 million range in the infobox if one was included. 2 million is not credible according to recent scholarship (although 1.5 isn't well supported either). (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Got it, I'll check for any recent clarifications of the death toll if there have been any made in the 2020s, if not, the 2019 source you provided seems best then. The source by Richard G. Hovannisian is from 1999, though may have some relatively good information. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The truth is that 1.5 million (or up to 1.5 million, for instance 1.2 million, 1.3 million) is very well supported (see Archives for this talk containing a myriad of RSs supporting these figures) and are widely used among genocide scholars, politicians, legislators, human rights activists, international lawyers, etc. Your lousy “around one million” is not well supported. Proof? There is no single reference in the opening para supporting that figure. Would you stop misleading your readers and insulting the professionalism of specialists in this subject area, please?73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Davidian
This editor (t · c) buidhe, for years now, stubbornly refuses (as if she owns the article, which is against Wikipedia's rules and regulations) to place the death toll range in the opening sentence. Many "battles" were fought on these Talk pages to remind her, over and over again, that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia editors MUST include ALL significant points of view with appropriate attributions. See: WP:CONFLICTING. It's to no avail. It's like spitting into the wind...73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Davidian

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

The annotation concerning number of Armenians killed in the box on the right doesn,t prove given number. In the text it is stated: "(...) one milion or so (...)". Eleczeks (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source provided does support the numbers given. See Google Books EvergreenFir (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
A multitude of RSs—provided a while ago and now kept in the Archives—indicate that the number of Armenians mass murdered, according to many reputable genocide scholars, genocide prevention experts, late Ottoman era historians, leading politicians, and international lawyers, ranges from over a million to 1.5 million. This has been more than once brought to the attention of this editor (t · c) buidhe. But she continues to keep a voluntarily rounded figure of “around one million” in the opening paragraph (why voluntarily? because, for all readers to see, the figure is not supported by any reference). While other editors prefer to turn a blind eye on this sheer violation of WP:CONFLICTING.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Davidian
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_33&oldid=1236389906"