Jump to content

Talk:Occupation of the Ottoman Bank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

The article is worded in a biased way. I'm going to clean it up so that it conforms to a more neutral point of view. Augustgrahl

I heard somewhere that Ottoman Bank was funded by England. Could you please take a look at it?

"They were subjected to heavy taxes and were downgraded as a separate group of Ottoman society, called a millet."

Do you have any idea what 'millet' means? It means 'society' and it is heavily used in Turkish language.


This entire paragraph uses one book as a source, Burning Tigris by Balakian. If you read this sample paragraph, many other articles about Ottoman Armenians are based on the same "source" anyway, you will see how biased this source is. I am not saying that massacres did not take place but I don't think the sultan himself instructed the mobs to go and kill. Slaughtered thousands of Armanians living in the city, he says, i wonder how many Armenians were living in Istanbul back then and "thousands" were killed. If you think by the logic of this writer, by 1915, there shouldn't have been any Armenians on the face of the earth. What I am trying to say is that these articles should be written by professionals, not by the general public and that more unbiased sources should be used.--216.165.95.79 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retribution against the ordinary Armenian populace in Constantinople was swift and brutal. Ottomans loyal to the government began to massacre the Armenians in Constantinople itself. Two days into the takeover, the Ottoman softas and bashibazouks, armed by the Sultan, went on a rampage and slaughtered thousands of Armenians living in the city.[9] According to the foreign diplomats in Constantinople, Ottoman central authorities instructed the mob "to start killing Armenians, irrespective of age and gender, for the duration of 48 hours."[10] The killings only stopped when the mob was ordered to desist from such activity by Sultan Hamid.[10] They murdered around 6,000[1] - 7,000 Armenians. Within 48 hours of the bank seizure, estimates had the dead numbering between 3,000 and 4,000, as authorities made no effort to contain the killings of Armenians and the looting of their homes and businesses.[11]

Background paragraph

[edit]

I agree that the Background paragraph is worded poorly and distracts from the content with its leading language. On the Culture of the Ottoman Empire page, millets are discussed as a sort of solution to a widespread territory with disparate ethnic and religious groups that eventually gave way to an enrichment of culture and the cosmopolitan nature of the Ottomans, yet in this article millets "downgrade separate groups" (also that seems like pretty clunky English to me). Phrases like "defend their basic rights," "infuriated the Sultan," and "small resistance" make this read more like an op-ed than an encyclopedic article. I understand that this is a pretty incendiary topic so I'd really appreciate some other input on this, perhaps from the original author. If there is a historical consensus I'm not aware of that calls for such Manichean language to be used, then so be it. Otherwise, like I said, it's distracting and misleading. Icetitan17 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To "85.107.68.118"

[edit]

If you think that the article is biased or inaccurate, please discuss why. Leaving comments that are disparaging of certain ethnic groups can be seen as vandalism and will be deleted accordingly. So, if you believe that this article needs attention, please bring it up in a more appropriate, productive manner. -- Augustgrahl 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Killings

[edit]

I think kidnapping, murder, and extortion qualify as "criminal", and the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople agreed. NYT: "The party of 40 men who yesterday forced their way into the Ottoman Bank, killing the gendarmes who were on guard at the entrance...."[1] I'd like to do more research, when I have time.DBaba 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the patriach said is his opinion (which needs to be verified anyway since the NY times article is something you buy) and has nothing to do with how wikipedia should describe the takeover. And why do you keep deleting the info on the ARF success in getting European attention and also the referenced letter from the European powers to Hamid II? Also, it is important to note that there was no intentional harm done to bank personnel and that nothing was stolen from the vault so we see the group remained loyal to its intention, which was to make an impact and dictate their demands to Europe. - Fedayee 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, please, cite anything in dispute! Don't just insist, and don't give me Armenica contradicting the New York Times as legit. I'm interested, and I'm listening.DBaba 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edits. I am interested as well, and I would like to take a better look at your source. Please send me a copy of this article by e-mail since I don't want to create an account and buy the article in question. Thanks in advance. -- Davo88 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I send a PDF through Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for the shameless double standard!
I'd hate for you to have to access the document on your own and create an account when I can go to work for you. Though, do me a favor and tell Fed why the slaughter of 4,000 innocents can't properly be deemed "success"; tell him his source has as much trouble with its facts as it does with its spelling; and tell him that a rational, adult mind would determine that the attention of European powers was probably trained on the wholesale slaughter of Christian peoples, rather than a forgettable, ill-considered, BLOODY terrorist operation that he's apparently bent on reforming into an act of chivalry. Meanwhile, the kidnapper-killer-bombers remain clean of "criminal"ity, whereas the looting-raping-killing remains "savage" without objection.DBaba 06:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First please be civil with your comments about "rational adult mind". You don't need to insult me by asking a third person to explain to me what you believe in, you can do it yourself. How the hell can a random wikipedian verify that NY times article? You're supposed to create an account and buy it. As Davo said you can send it to him via email easily, with your own email account, doesn't have to be through wikipedia. Anyway if you seem to know that savage, bloody, criminal are all POV words, then why do you add them in the first place? You should've left "criminal bloody" off as much as the word "savage". Getting back to the event, the Dashnaks purpotrated the event as a response to the 100 000 Armenians killed during the Hamidian massacres. The entire point of it was to get European attention, to get in favour with them so they send aid the Armenian vilayets within the Ottoman Empire. Why on earth would they harm the European bank personnel if they wanna get in favour with them. I am not saying Turkish soldiers/guards did not die, as a matter of fact they did in the initial shootout (where 9 of the attackers also died including Papken Syuni). Nothing was stolen from the vault which is a fact or else it would've been reported, same goes if they killed any hostages. You are entitled to your opinion if you consider the act a "forgettable, ill-considered, BLOODY terrorist" one. After the surrender, a few thousand more Armenians were killed as you know. The operation got initial European attention which was what the Dashnaks wanted but thousands of Armenians were killed as a retaliation for the attack and also, European help failed to materialize. I do not see why we cannot add that nothing was stolen from the vault which is what bank takeover are usually for no? It's important to note that there were no reported deaths of hostages (unless otherwise proven) which hasn't been reported either. It is also important to mention if the ARF succeeded in its goal is it was the perpetrator. And the insulting letter to the sultan was not added by me, but we all know that Europe condemned the killing of the Armenians after the bank event and it was sourced so what it is highly likely. - Fedayee 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil, as factual as those words are, they have an emotive context to them - something Wikipedia as I have stated before, avoids. Use your print screen when viewing the PDF file on your desktop, copy + paste it onto Microsoft Paint (or Word) and save it to your desktop as a bitmap file. That way, we'll be able to view it and you can send it to us.--MarshallBagramyan 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism?

[edit]

Mustapha Akalp, please show me a non-partial source that calls the 1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover an act of terrorism. -- Davo88 14:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism:

Encyclopedic:

  • X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
  • X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
  • Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

  • X is a terrorist group.
  • Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
  • After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Anyway that Category is up for deletion too. - Fedayee 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

A massacre of Armenians took place in the town of Egin, because it was the birthplace of Papken Siuni. Something should be mentioned of that fact, if someone has accurate details of the casualties and dates. Meowy 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Fedayee (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, I've changed the word "city" to "town" where you used it to describe Egin - it was never big enough to be called a city. Meowy 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda undisguised

[edit]

This article is a disgrace. Blatant ethnic propaganda. Glorifying a banal terrorist act. Then they wonder loudly why Ottomans were so mean to them! This is comical and so transparent. Capacity of these people for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me. This the original terrorist act, it inspired 100 yrs of terrorism, that is their contribution to human race. Look how proud! --Murat (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worse than your hate driven rhetoric! Try reading Wikipedia:Words to avoid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_or_freedom_fighter.3F , specifically. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A title change is needed

[edit]

"1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover" is very misleading, it suggests some sort of corporate merger! "1896 Ottoman Bank seizure" would be better, but is still suggestive of some sort of economic or business incident. How about "1896 Ottoman Bank capture" (that is the wording used by Dadrian in his "History of the Armenian Genocide") or "1895 Ottoman Bank occupation" or "1896 Ottoman Bank siege"? Meowy 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack

[edit]

The incident is described as a terrorist attack here [2] [3]

The London magazine: In 1896 a bank robbery attempt in Constantinople by an armed Armenian terrorist gang...--193.140.194.102 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is referring to an event which took place in the Palestine mandate in 1946 so I don't think it will work as a source for this article....The second source is just a general book on terrorism. Whatever the case, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are words we generally try to avoid on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok changed first one. Terrorism by Hunchak and Dashnaks were one of the first examples of modern terrorism. It is important to keep the word terroism in this aricle.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arf logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
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) 04:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When does terrorism called takeover?

[edit]

The attack is surely a terrorist act. There is no doubt civilians and innocent people died. How can it be a takeover? The guys attack the state bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.2.161 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another example that shows us what happens when some groups takeover Wikipedia. Totally corrupting it's original goal. As long as Wikipedia doesn't stop these idiots, its downfall will come soon.Chonanh (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover → Attack on the Ottoman Bank – WP:COMMONNAME --Relisted. Red Slash 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Երևանցի talk 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Google Books results[reply]

Oppose It was a takeover, not an attack. The Armenians who took part in the act were seeking to draw the attention of the European powers to the plight of their countrymen, not attacking it or deliberately seeking to destroy the Ottoman Bank. "Capture" is the word Armenian sources use but takeover is more accurate. The word "attack" here is incorrect and inappropriate. The searches above don't support a move for the proposed title change.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intentions of the ARF are known. From an Armenian point of view, it was an act to stop the violence in Western Armenia. This is indisputable. The intentions are clear as I said, but it still wrong to call it a "takeover". If not an attack, maybe occupation or seizure, but not takeover. --Երևանցի talk 17:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biased article

[edit]

Quoted from the article: "Throughout the ordeal the personnel of the bank were treated well and were told that they were not robbers, were not looking to harm them, and did not want to rob the bank's money. They clarified that their goal was to simply dictate their political demands to the Ottoman and European governments. Nothing was stolen from the vault." Unbelievable! It's as if these people were not terrorists, but good samaritans who walked into the bank to make deposits! This article is a shame for the entire lot of Wikipedia. Todd (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Ottoman_Bank&oldid=1184891255"