Talk:Bedros Kapamajian

Comments

Sources

OR, you don't think there is a problem that all the sources provded are Turkish and the other one is Justin McCarthy of all people lol? There isn't one neutral or reliable reference.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Which argument is so difficult to believe that Ευπάτωρ needs Armenian citation? --OttomanReference 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Bedros Kapamajian was an Armenian?
2. Bedros Kapamajian was a mayor?
3. Bedros Kapamajian was assassinated?
4. Bedros Kapamajian was assasinated by his son?
5. Bedros Kapamajian's "son" was ARF member?
6. Bedros Kapamajian wrote a report that blamed ARF for the fires? (PS:Is it possible to find an Armenian (ARF) source for this?)
7. Bedros Kapamajian was accused as an Ottoman puppet by ARF?
8. Viramyan, one of the writers of Azadamard (ARF newspaper) and Aram Manougian were arrested and Aram Manougian was asked to leave the Van?

The notability itself is kinda questionable. I mean during the Ottoman Empire numerous people, high post or not, deemed collaborators by both Ottoman and ARF or Armenian sides were jailed, removed or executed. A search for Bedros Kapamajian on google gave me 3 pages of results, many of em Wikipedia related pages. Bedros Kapamaciyan on the other hand (Turkish spelling) gave me plenty of results that deny the Armenian Genocide and exagerate Armenian activity during the Ottoman Empire. A search for Bedros Kapamajian on google books gave me 0 results. Kapamciyan gave me 1 result, an article in Turkish. Of course, the Ottoman Empire/today's Turkey would find anything to vilify all that is done by Armenians, particularily the ARF. If this were at all notable or supposedly true, opponents of the ARF, and there are alot, would most certainly accuse them of killing fellow Armenians and write something about it. Fedayee 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not everyone is involved in "denier-defender" fight, so it is a good idea to use words carefully! The general argument "If it is not printed in my media, it has to be wrong" is flowed. Each side has its media that only covers their arguments and ignores the opposing, and selectively publish (defending the right·eous view). I guess "deniers-defenders" needs to look from other arguments and try to understand what had happened 100 years ago. Each side has its own history and most of the facts (of the story) has some form of truth in it. OttomanReference 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And just cause it's mentioned in Turkish books does not make it true. Propoganda could've been rampant during that time, on both sides. That is why we must find secondary sources (Justin McCarthy is not a neutral secondary source). It will be hard to find such sources because of the notibility of the alleged event being not that big. A mayor is not really notable. If it was a provincial governor or someone of a top post, it would've been very notable, such as the Yildiz Attempt on Hamid II. And the ARF had/has plenty of political opponents (who are Armenians), there could've been some coverage of it that bashed the event, it could've been documented in books such as the murder of the Armenian archbishop in Syracuse, a charge that has been layed on the ARF by other Armenians. Fedayee 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the citations to Turkish (or pro-Turkish) sources on this article. If the information on this article is not backed up by a neutral or verifiable secondary source by May 1, then I'm going to nominate this article for deletion. -- Aivazovsky 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, and reverted per WP:V - it is verifiability and not truth that counts - you cannot simply remove sources just because they are Turkish - that doesn't make sense. Please do not carry that ugly habit that plagued the recent Azeri-Armenian debate "no, that's pro-X, it must be removed" - there is no such rule. What is the point of the harassment of this article, may I ask? They are sourced, and people are free to discuss POV issues in talk however.. Baristarim 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong to remove the references in question, but all I ask is for some neutral or verifiable secondary sources to confirm what has been stated on this article. If not, then I will assume it is simply POV and nominate it for deletion.

Also refrain from using such strong words as "ugly" or "harassment". You speak of the Armenian-Azeri dispute, but really, this is one of the major issues plaguing it. -- Aivazovsky 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize if I caused offense, but it was just that one thing that I had noticed in those disputes was the sources (biased, not biased, acceptable, not-acceptable etc). In any case, you are right in the sense that any other sources would be definitely welcome. Nevertheless, I don't understand why you want to nominate it for deletion - there are verifiable sources you know. It is not like the article is claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't know the story, but I do feel some sense of minor harassment of the article - there are many articles out there written only by Armenian sources (some of the articles on battles), when was the last time I nominated any for deletion?

In any case, one thing you said is not correct: there are verifiable sources. nevertheless, neutrality is a double-edged sword and is on the eye of the beholder. Again, I don't like this habit of considering Turkish sources as unreliable or that they are always lying. Anyways, it is not the Apollo landing we are talking about, so if I were you I wouldn't be holding my breath for tons of documentation about this :) Baristarim 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be nominated for deletion because all the sources in the article are not neutral sources. If anyone does not agree with the deletion then they should find more neutral sources besides sources that are Turkish. By the way Baristarim, next time don't tell me what I should or not learn, that doesn't not concern you. ROOB323 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Actually, I would consider Armenian sources to be just as unreliable as Turkish sources. That's why I say that for this article the information must be verified by a neutral or verifiable secondary source. -- Aivazovsky 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to fight the urge of reverting, but Baris will probably start whining about WP:POINT etc; his favorite ad hominem. I doubt it would be a violation to add {{verify credibility}} to the dubious citations. Is seems to be designed expressly for dubious sources as in this case.--Domitius 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It concerns Wikipedia, and disruption is detrimental to the project. Please read WP:V - the info is verifiable and that's what is important, it is verifiability, not truth. Then we might as well delete all articles who primarily use Armenian sources by that logic.. Baristarim 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The other solution would be to "balance" this article by using Armenian sources as well as Turkish sources. Trouble is, there are no Armenian sources on Bedros Kapamajian. Turkish sources alone cannot back-up the information on this article. How can we be sure that Bedros Kapamajian even existed? I'm not saying that he didn't, but still, we need to verify this. -- Aivazovsky 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hear your points. Listen, only thing that I found a bit odd is the excessive use of fact tags, deletions etc. That's the only thing that I am concerned about. As can be seen from the article history - I didn't write this article. I just would like things to be cool and calm. I will take some time to make some search of my own - you might also want to leave a note at Free Smyrnan - she said that she has some good books about Armenians in the OE et al. Ask her to take a look at it. If things are still not settled, an AfD is still possible. Are you sure that you have not found any mention of this guy in any Armenian sources? Roob23, by the way I apologize if I might have come on a bit strong earlier on, but trying to control tensions in certain articles is really hard and I had to run in with the fire extinguisher to numerous disputes today already! I am just a bit weary.. Baristarim 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ROOB323, but Baris that was very respectable of you. Your frustration with settling disputes is understandable (I've been there before). Had this taken place before Hrant Dink was shot, I think I would have just gone ahead and nominated this for deletion without thinking, but I decided to set a date (May 1) for an AfD unless some verifiable sources can be found before then. I haven't found anything in Armenian sources on this person, but I can double check. I'll contact Free Smyrnan. Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's cool. I have also been trying to make some research.. I will leave a note later on.. Baristarim 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Aivazovsky left me a note so I took a (brief) look at the article and the dispute here. I hope everybody is aware that the Y.G.Çark reference in the article is Yervant Gomidas Çarkçıyan. I have a 2006 re-publication of the book and can easily check the biography against the book, but I am not sure whether this dispute is about that or something deeper. Would that be sufficient for this debate? --Free smyrnan 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Can someone add the Armenian name? And, please there is no reason to remove the Turkish name..Baristarim 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. - Fedayee 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Baristarim 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

checking the Çarkçıyan book

As promised I checked the Çarkçıyan reference. The book is written by Rev. Yervant Gomidas Çarkçıyan. It was originally published in 1953. There is very little biographical information, just stating that he was an Armenian Catholic priest, that this was his only book, and that he was the publisher of Kidagan Darikirko magazine. The copy that I possess was re-published in 2006, by Kesit Yayınları, ISBN 978-9944-321-044. The book's title is "Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler" - Armenians in Turkish State Services. The book is exactly that. It is organized into several historical periods. For example for the period of 1753-1853, he lists the names and gives bio's of varying lengths for Armenians in charge of the Imperial mint. Bedros Kapamajian's entry appears in the section for period 1853-1913, under those in affairs of the Interior (Dahiliye hizmetleri). It is a short entry, here it is, in English translation (translation mine):

p.121: Bedros Kapamajian (1840-...) He entered commerce at a young age and was trading textiles with Manchester. Around the middle of 1909, he was appointed Mayor of Van. At this very sensitive post, his uncomparable efforts were lauded and he was praised by the government. That the lake of Van finally got a ferry is due to the efforts of Van governor Bekir Sami Bey, accountant-inspector Recep Hilmi Efendi and Bedros Efendi [Kapamajian].

He also gives a citation for this paragraph: Teotik salnamesi, 1911, p.253. This would be a yearbook, or other periodical known as or by Teotik. A quick google shows some references to an annual publication by an Armenian named Teotik (shortened form, probably Teotoros is the full first name, such shortenings are common). The annual publication's name is Amenon Darevisi. I don't know whether this is the annual publication by Teotik that Çarkçıyan refers to, but the period is right.

If anybody wishes to deepen the search, I believe I have given enough material to dig deeper. Regards, --Free smyrnan 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone educate me about Armenian demands for deletion based on neutrality!!!

user:ROOB323 says: This article should be nominated for deletion because all the sources in the article are not neutral sources. The nature of neutrality applies to abstract conclusions (statements) such as "The events can be named as Armenian Genocide" or "the events can only be attributed to a civil war". However Armenians delete facts (such as dates, size of events, persons involved, etc) which could not be analyzed on neutrality. I have hard time understanding how a factual information can become an issue of neutrality. A fact can be validated or denied. I have never seen an Armenian on these conflicting issues brought forward a better source. However a fact being claimed to be non-neutral, seems to be a Joke presented by Armenian editors. Also the Armenian behavior which extends to trashing non Turkish historians that brought arguments is disturbing. This trashing seems to be a designated policy of Armenian editors aimed to prevent the validation of arguments that brought forward. This behavior develops an nonconstructive environment and preventing finding the truth behind the period. Some of these arguments, which are not discussed, form the very basic step stones of the genocide. Such that the STRONG reaction of Jevdet Bey towards Van Resistance can be explained as he could be easily scared from Armenian national movement. and that would be expected, if the previous major of Van was assassinated by the ARF (less then two years ago). Also, some say McCarthy is not a reliable source. However I do not see any Armenian source that brought a proof to breakdown on McCarthy's claims. I have hard time understanding the ignorance of the factual arguments by the Armenians in this article or other related articles. The person who claims that Turkish sources are not reliable has the responsibility to break it down and prove why it is wrong. Beside Turkish editors are not claiming "Burning Tigris" (Peter Balakian) is an unreliable (ps:all the sources in the Armenian Genocide page is from this author) as there is no factual info in this page but a collection of conclusions and assertions (ps. all the sources in "Burning tigris" is secondary as the guy is not a historian. It should not be used at all. Peter Balakian's uniquenesses originates from the fact that uses techniques of fiction writers). I believe there is a problem on Turkish side not confronting Armenians on this issue, which Armenians do it on daily bases. And they do it as a group. SOO, I'm asking someone to educate me Why we need to get rid of this article and why opposing sources are unreliable. --OttomanReference 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A candidate for deletion

Im going to add deletion tag to this article, because:

1. Kapamajian is not a notable person. During the centuries Van and many other cities of region had their large number of mayors, so what? He is not notable not in literature or historiography, nor in the Google.

2. The article is fully a POV using only partisan sources. No any neutral sources asking his son was a Dashnak and that he killed his father. Andranikpasha 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

+the partisan sources are in Turkish language, so we cant check them... Andranikpasha 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

• "Bedros Kapamajian" -Llc 0
• "Bedros Kapamadjian" -Llc 1

Takabeg (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Some info to be included

BEDROS KAPAMAJIAN was born in 1840 and elected the mayor of Van on February 2, 1908. Kapamajian was a loyal Ottoman, who opposed the Armenian revolutionary Hunchak and Dashnak parties. Unfortunately, the Armenian Patriarch was plotting with the Armenian revolutionaries to organize an uprising that would trigger European intervention on behalf of the Armenian nationalists. As part of these plots, a series of fires broke out in Van, in which the homes of some Armenians also burned. The Patriarch asked Kapamajian to send a report to the Ambassadors of the European States stating that the fires and provocation were caused by Muslims, and that the lives and property of Armenians were in imminent danger. However, Mayor Kapamajian instead sent a report telling that this was not the case and that the fires were started by the Armenian Dashnak revolutionaries.

The Dashanks were angered by Kapamajian's loyalty to the Ottomans, and thus they put him on a black list, along with other loyal Armenians, marked for assassination. Tragically, Mayor Kapamajian was assassinated by his own son, a member of the Armenian revolutionary Dashnak party, on December 10, 1912. Yakamoz51 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)