Talk:Khanasor Expedition

File:Arf logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Arf logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Arf logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Massacre

Hello as the article has almost no reference I had difficulty see what actually happened. I found this [1] and this [2] clearly refutes only men of Mazrik tribe were killed. Second source is in Turkish. Thanks Abbatai 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"radikal.com.tr" and "turkish coalition of america" are not academic sources. And evidentially you learned nothing about the irriliability of WP:PRIMARY sources from Defense of Van, assuming that isn't fake. --Oatitonimly (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ohh really? Mihran Kurdoghlian's book is the only source there which is not a third part source. When it is Armenian it is reliable but Turkish not. Hilarious logic! Article seems pure propaganda. What about moving it to "Khanasor Massacre"? Thanks --Abbatai 10:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I propose the restore pervious Turkish source and add POV tag. Thanks --Abbatai 10:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Abbatai: Can you please provide any information pertaining to where Ayse Hur is getting this information from? And from what I understand, Hur says "gece yarısı kör ateşinde" meaning that that the shooting took place in the darkness of the night and the Tasnak's didn't know that the Kurdish combatants left the village, effectively leaving behind only women and children. Apparently, since they couldn't see at night, women and children may have accidentally been killed which means this was an accident and there was no intention to kill women and children, that is if this event actually happened. In your edit, however, you make it appear as if the Armenians had an intent to killed women and children. Care to explain? Would you like to explain? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbatai, the Radikal article is not about the Khanasor expedition, it appears to be about Kurds in the 19thC massacring or oppressing Armenians and the origins of Kurdish intellectuals speaking out against this and arguing that Kurds need to stop being the backward puppets of the Sultan. Only 3 sentences in the lengthy Radikal article concerns the Khanasor expedition, with the content you want inserted contained in one of them. As Étienne Dolet points out, its author does not say where she gets her information from. Extreme claims require specific sourcing. Even the propaganda telegram cited in the Liverpool Courier (its words are not a news report, they are claims made by the Vali of Van in an official Ottoman telegram to the Ottoman government) does not say "killing only women and children of the tribe". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It says "Ermeni çetecilerinin gece yarısı kör ateşinde" meaning "blind fire of Armenian fedayees at night." So I still do not see any misrepresentation. How did you get it was accidentally? You simply editorializing the paragraph. Though we can add the timing of event(night) to article, no objection. I will be more than happy if you discuss the sources not seek bad intentions behind my edits next time.

Tiptoe the whole article is almost without any source and written according to Armenian side's views. Better you bring some 3rd party source for us to improve article. Thanks. Abbatai 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ermeni çetecilerinin gece yarısı kör ateşinde" means that the Armenian fedayees were firing blind fire/bullets (kör ateşinde) in the darkness of the night so they didn't know what they were aiming because, after all, they couldn't see. Hence why it's accidental and by no means intentional. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbatai, that Turkish source names no specific sources for the particular claim you are inserting, and it is a general article not specifically about this subject. There is no indication where the source's author got such specific information from (it is not as if there are eyewitnesses left to interview). Since it is an extreme claim, and one derived from a general source published in a country with a non-free press and a long history of producing anti-Armenian propaganda, it is my opinion that this claim is tainted and cannot be used until we know where it originated from. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording a little bit. What do you think? Abbatai 01:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to be revamped. Nothing makes sense. Supposedly Armenians killed only women and children, but theu also suffered heavy casualities. How does that make sense? We need to reexamine all the sources. Introduce new ones. There's lots of work to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well as I said above There are not enough sources for most of the information written in the article. For the killings part the current article is ok as long as someone comes with a better source. Thanks. Abbatai 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the killings part becomes more dubious the more we look into it, hence why I tagged it. We need strong sources and more discussion over this before we can move forward. Some observations I found are the following:

1. On 25 July 1897, at dawn,... According the Hur, the attack happened at night.
2. Although ARF founder Rosdom's brother Garo and 25 other fedayees were among the casualties,... However, according to Hur, all able-bodied males left the village leaving behind only women and children. So how is it that there are casualties?
3. Tiptoethrutheminefield makes some good points here. Even the vali didn't report childrens' deaths, so where's Hur getting her information from?
4. I stumbled upon a Suny source. On page 143 it says the following when it comes to Khanasor: "The fighters crossed over from Persia and attacked a Kurdish tribe, the Mazriks, slaughtering nearly all the adult men. Kurds counterattacked, pursuing the Armenians towards Persia and killing 20 of them." That seems much more credible since it falls in line with almost every other source regarding the event. Hur's statement is just plain out of touch. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Alas google does not allow a viewing of Footnote 8 of chapter 5 to see which source Suny gets this information from. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoe, There is no such rule here on Wikipedia we cannot use Turkish newspapers as source. This is your views only. You are partially right about censorship in Turkey. However, you know it very good Radikal was left wing newspaper and a lot of its writer were against mainstream Turkish taboos i.e. you can find a lot of articles about Armenian Genocide. Ayşe Hür opposes Turkish official stance on most of issues she writes. Therefore, the source is quite neutral and reliable. And see this edit by you. When a piece of information from radikal.com.tr overlaps with what you think it seems you never question the credibility of source but when it is the opposite you look quite skeptic. That made my day :). Thanks. Abbatai 10:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbatai, your Radikal comparison of articles has no validity. The other article is about a contemporary event which can be subject to investigative journalism, where there will still be living witnesses to be interviewed and where the words of the subject survive. The article being considered here is about an historical event that happened over 120 years before the article was written. Thus, Hur must have got her information from a previously published source. We do not know what that source is, but what it contains appears to be an extreme claim and one that fits the pattern of content in a typical Turkish anti-Armenian propaganda tract. Supposing the source was an Armenian Genocide denialist work like Uras's "Armenians in History and the Armenian Problem". Such publications are not RS for Wikipedia. I am arguing that until we know the source we cannot use this content because there is a good chance it comes from a propaganda source (given what the content is claiming in this instance, and that everything produced in Turkey related to Armenian history has, to some degree, been tainted with genocide-denialist propaganda and the laws intended to enforce that denial). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: This peer-reviewed source from the Armenian Review states that: "300 fighters who exterminated the entire Mazrig tribe and destroyed their habitation, but withall, spared the lives of the women and children." This is much more reliable and makes much more sense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We do appear to have just one source that claims only women were killed, and numerous other sources that claim the opposite. All I see on Google is a snippet review so I don't know the context of snippet or what their source is. While 1964 is closer to the event, anyone involved would have still been dead by then - so there must be earlier sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of looking into prime sources, but we'd also need a couple of contemporary sources that would verify the prime sources (i.e. telegrams, contemporaneous eye-witness reports, etc.). Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoe, you basically came here with an argument that Turkish newspapers could not be a reliable source then it was refuted by your own edits. Now you come up with another argument we should accept the articles about contemporary events but exclude the ones written by historians. As I said before Ayşe Hür is one of the e few historians writes on very sensitive issues such asthis one and I do not think her works should be underestimated. BTW thanks for bringing some sources at the end. Considering the cited new sources (we should check whether they are reliable on this issue) I think we should carefully reword the event section. Also, ED these new sources contradict with each other. For instance, if all the men of Mazrik tribe were killed during raid how come they followed Armenians till Persian border? Thanks. Abbatai 21:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbatai, you are still not addressing the issue that Hür cites no sources for her claim. She is not an historian of Armenian history or 19th-century Ottoman history. No other source has been found making the same claim. The claim sounds exactly like the stuff found in AG denialist books like Uras's "Armenians in History and the Armenian Problem" - I wonder if it may have originated in the notorious Ottoman WW1 "Armenian aspirations...." booklet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

NB., I have now checked Uras, and this claim is not in that book, he does not mention the event at all. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

According to William L. Langer the Armenians "killed or barbarously mutilated men, women and children."(The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1960, p. 350) So, now I would agree a new consensus in light of his book. Thanks.Abbatai 23:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Langer is not a reliable source. He is obviously bias and you could tell by the language he uses (i.e. "killed or barbarously mutilated men"). Langer was so hell-bent of denying the Armenian Genocide that he accused the Armenians of stoking rebellion against the Ottomans so that they can get massacred and hope that European intervene on their behalf. An entirely outrageous claim. Where does he get this information from anyways? He never shows his sources. He doesn't know Armenian. Doesn't know Ottoman Turkish. Classic case of some sort of neocon propagandist. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Langer's book is from the 1930s [3]. I imagine the exact equivalent of the neocon existed then, but I doubt they were called that! Langer's book is not going to be a usable source today anymore than this book would be for the Roman Empire - it is a period piece, so only useful for reflecting the opinions of that age (when the US was starting to consider itself the successor state to the British Empire). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I imagine the exact equivalent of the neocon existed then, but I doubt they were called that! - Oh Tiptoe, what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I am planning to remove the claim of killing women and children because it's dubious. Unless we can find any sort of reliable evidence as to where such a claim came from, it doesn't belong in this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree but restoring the previous version that fedayees only killed men and spared women and children is Armenian POV. Plus Langer is way reliable than Marc Nushanian, Mihran Kurdoghlian, and Armenian National and Revolutionary Songs. At least he is a historian. ED, you seem inserting non-existed rules to this article such as a historian doesn't speak Armenian cannot be cited. Anyway, at the end we should focus on improving article not trivial issues. So, if we are gonna remove the current source then what will we write instead? Langer's book and this clearly proves some atrocities. Thanks. Abbatai 12:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoe, your analogy is again quite wrong as there are tons of books on Roman Empire published by reliable writers every year that's why the book you pointed may not be cited any more. However, there are not much sources on this specific event. And the sources you brought are quite biased as they are not 3rd party sources. Thanks. Abbatai 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like the Langer source must go because it misrepresents and grossly exaggerates the Vali's narrative of the event. The Vali claimed that thousands of Armenians crossed the border. That's not at all true. It was more like two hundred. A source that uses words like "barbarously mutilated" when indeed the Vali never used such words himself is also not to be trusted. Also, this was the time of the Hamidian massacres. Are Vali testimonies supposed to be trusted at all? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Langer is neutral source here. Seems you ignore the fact that all those Armenian sources are not reliable. Abbatai 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A source that uses "barbarously mutilated" when describing a certain event is not using neutral language, hence it's not a neutral source and it's driven by some sort of POV. I'm not even advocating using Armenian sources either. I say we remove the claim of the killing of women and children entirely. That way, we won't have to go back and forth on this discussion. We obviously don't have enough information and we can't depend on one WP:PRIMARY source from a Vali's telegram from 1897. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I already agreed on removing newspaper article. But wait where is your primary and secondary unbiased sources on event? And what will be next version? Abbatai 18:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The next version will simply remove any minute details of the offensive. Clearly, we are in no position to decipher what happened and whether women and children were killed or spared. So any such material related to that should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Killing of Mazrik Tribe members by Armenian revolutionaries is the core point of the event, we can not exclude what happened during the fight. And yes there are primary and secondary sources on how it occurred. It is just your prejudices against Langer and Turkish sources. You are simply trying to censor the fact that those Kurdish people were massacred by Dashnaks. Note that the reason we remove radikal.com article is because we have more reliable sources on the event now not nonexistent rules you are introducing to his article as I mentioned above. Thanks. Abbatai 01:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Langer is not a reliable source. His entire understanding of Armeno-Turkish relations is controversial and highly misleading. Bloxham, a leading scholar of not just the Armenian Genocide, but of many genocides, asserted that Langer presented no evidence to his claims [4]. Above all, Langer himself has been described as a "Turkophile" by foremost historian Vahakn Dadrian [5]. So we really are in disruptive POV territory if we keep making the claim of women and children being killed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This conflict was between Kurds and Armenians so being a "Turkophile" for Langer is a trivial detail. Moreover, I like the way you only question Langer's book but not those references in the article mostly written by Armenians do not qualify WP:RS. Clearly the claim "Sharaf by escaped with women cloths" is Armenian POV. Please stop insisting on this version, you are violating AA2 and not here to improve article. I am ok with adding both claims and stating those are Armenian, Langer's, or Kurdish-Ottoman claim etc. But keeping only Armenian claims is not acceptable at all. Thanks. --Abbatai 09:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

How is "Sharaf by escaped with women cloths" an Armenian POV? And yes, Langer is a Turkophile, hence biased, hence not reliable. As a compromise, how about we not use both Langer and Dasnabetian and rely solely on peer-reviewed articles and journals. But there's many different versions of this event and there appears to be very few details on it. So I really don't think we should be making extraordinary claims on who massacred who or whether there was a massacre at all without extraordinary evidence. Though I did find some peer-reviewed sources. For example, this peer-reviewed source says "part of the menfolk were massacred outright, while others took to flight, taking the women and children with them." So we have 1) women and children massacred 2) women and children were spared 3) women and children escaped. I mean, the more we look into it the more different versions we'll uncover. A simple sentence such as "the Armenian Revolutionary Federation defeated Sharaf Beg and accomplished their objectives in nullifying the Mazrik tribe's influence in the region" appears to be the best compromise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)