Talk:Temporary Law of Deportation

This article needs a significant rewrite and a major summary in the opening

I'm new here, but I came to this page to find out what this law said exactly. The first, second, or third paragraphs do not tell me this. Furthermore the grammar in some of these paragraphs is incorrect, and apparently written by a non-native English speaker. This is fine, per se, but this is an English article and should be edited (for grammar and spelling) by fluent speakers.

Anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the law itself? Anyone read the law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.113.53 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that anything relating to the Armenian Genocide stirs up strong feelings in some people; I personally don't have any strong feelings one way or another about this but it is quite apparent from the loaded language used in the article that the author is far from impartial (e.g. "While on the surface the law was allegedly temporary, the main reason of the law was to settle the Armenian issue once for all, therefore permanent. Kamuran Gurun has released archival material from the minister of war that provides the aim of passing the law. In that letter Enver takes it as permanent and not temporary with the aim of fixing the Armenian problem once and for all"). It would be great if this subject could be addressed a little more impartially. If I was more knowledgable on this subject, I would do it, however I don't know much about this other than it reeks of bias and emotion. Snifff (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ottoman has not a Göçmenler Genel Müdürlüğü) false knowledge. Correct it.

Genel Müdürlük recently exsist. It is a wrong knowlodge.--3210 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally dispute this article

Under even the official prime minister directorate released archives, it contradict various of the materials, example that the catholics were not subject to it. The so-called relocation list is a total fabrication provided first by Halacoglu contradicted even by Kamuran Gurun figures or Talaat Pasha personal note made public the last year. The Muslims were not affected by this law, but by another, which was under the guidance of the war effort abd linked with the order of mobilisation, this too is recorded in official Turkish materials. I will just stop there for now. Fad (ix) 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to add, that this law was placed to concord with the already existing order if evacuation, which started in March 2. Fad (ix) 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free place, Fad can bring his proof. A) He can bring the proof of "catholics were subjected"; If there is no proof, at this moment none, his claims are just his POV. B) The text of the Law is "Migrants law", "Muslims were not affected by this law" can not be deduced by looking at the law, as there were thousands of Muslim migrants. If Fad claims there were no Muslim migrants, he needs to prove that there was Muslim displaced subject during the World War One. At this moment, his claim is just his POV. C) It is normal to have "already existing order if evacuation" under the war zone. "Order if evacuation" is not unusual and it is not classified as deportation (Techir) which is the topic of this article. --OttomanReference 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Backward thinking, you are the one making the claim, it isen't for me to prove the non-existance. My family were catholics and were evacuated regardless of their religion. The exclusion criteria for catholics applied for French and German missionaries, the same goes with protestants, it has nothing to do with Ottoman subjects, unless for Armenian missionaries under the guidance of a western order. See for instance the BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 54/55 archive, which stats: Ermeni Katolik misyonerlerle sörlerin simdilik orada kalmalari daha münâsibdir. The only reference about Armenian subjects relate to the ciphered telegram of August 4, 1915, which relates to the remaining Ottoman Armenian catholics which were still not deported (see: BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 54-A/252). And this after an accord the Ottoman government obtained with the Germans, but as evidenced by the released archive itself, this was not respected, see for example BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 58/2 for Konya or BOA. DH. SFR, nr.63/157 for Marash, etc.

As for your claim, you have yet to provide any evidences from records that the official Tehcir law was applied in anyway to Muslims, Kamuran Gurun in his work present the announce of the law presented by Enver, which provides the reasons according to the government of the application of the law, and it was specifically the evacuation of the Armenians. The postulated law of resettlement of TransCaucasian and Russian Muslims is the only such official laws including Muslims, which was simply to replace the Armenians in the west. The movement of Muslim population was under the laws on the mobilisation of the war and has nothing to do with the article of law presented by Enver himself which was specifically regarding the Armenians. I will reinstate the totally disputed banner as long as you present unsourced, innacurate and highly POV claims which are yours, since even Kamuran Gurun contradict you. Fad (ix) 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

O.k. First one of your arguments is added to the article. For the second, No one is God, including Kamuran Gurun. Where does Kamuran Gurun pulls out the source of his claims, if you bring this we can add that information. It is undeniable that there was a "law on the mobilisation of the war", no one tries to say so. But it is also obvious that existence of one law do not prevent of application of another to the same group. I think all your bases are covered. Thanks.--OttomanReference 23:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of your interpretations are direct copies of Halacoglu interpretations. The Tehcir law was originally called the law on the measures taken by the military against those opposing the government implementations during wartime. This law followed Envers proposition of evacuation of the Armenians in his telegram dated May 2, and to facilitate its application on June 10, soon after its application the government issued another law regarding the properties of those evacuated, this law specifically was referring to the Armenians, it was a law on the properties of those affected by the Tehcir law, and it was specifically written on it that it concerned the Armenians. This law was placed in application in parallel, in July 12, it was requested that those measures taken against the Armenians not to be extended to other christians (BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 54/406). Refik covers it and he also say that the decision was taken against the Armenians. The evacuation started before it, and then this law appeared as justification, and then 9 days later after its official application another law on the properties of those evacuated came to birth, and this law again only referred to the Armenians as the target. The entire collection of 272 telegrams released under the the Prime Ministry, General Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives is clear as to the application of the law and who were the targets of this law.

Tehcir was a huge process which was coordinated with a law; as presented in this article. Hundred-thousand Armenians were effected by this law. Laws like, USA PATRIOT Act (given the context of 1915) has been taken by Ottoman Government, no one denies it. None of them (like the one you brought forward) were the Tehcir Law. There was no law that could channel all the resources as Tehcir Law had done, which puts it behind the argumentations of state organized crime. However, from your claims, if there was a law that could (besides the given in the article) initiate such an activity, you are welcome to present that evidence. As with all civil governments, every law passed in the Ottoman Empire was performed information exchange between responsible parties (includes "minister of war" in this case). Background that you present is very known part of the history, that could be presented as background of the law if you can bring the citations (chipers). As there are things Lost in translation when performed, an emotional person who lost their grand parents. However, the arguments you are mentioning was not the Tehcir Law, and previous movements of Armenian Citizens, as you claim, could never approach to the same spirit of Tehcir Law. Opposing this article, claiming that Tehcir Law (as presented) is not applicable, is something beyond any scientific discussion, and you have to perform that activity with someone else. Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to see what argument you are trying to bring. You just shut on your feets by repeating my criticism. Read the entire discussion once more and maybe you'll understand. Fad (ix) 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who is trying to read this Discussion page and follow along, I must offer a word of advice: if English is not your first language, and you are not very good at it, don't write. You come across as illiterate. Which then renders any point you are trying to make useless. Sorry, but it's true.Cutugno (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Fadix 1:	24 November 2006	Not extended to other christians	Resolved: The information Fadix presented was added on 2006-11-23 22:58:09
Fadix 2:	24 November 2006	on mobilisation of the war	Resolved: From his text; April 24 was the "April 24 circular" which was different than the Tehcir Law. If he wants, he can also present Tehcir Law as background to Enver Pasha article. There is no other law presented in his message. The rest (relationship with Kurds, Battle of Sarikamish and Van Resistance) should be discussed under Armenian Genocide, which links all these issues.
Fadix 3:	25 November 2006	on etymology	Resolved: There is no objection in the article for the development of the "etymology concept" which can be developed/argued by Fadix in Tehcir law (Etymology) and after the concept reaches maturity it can be link to this article, with other forms of (Turkish, Arabic, Armenian, etc) forms. His/Hers/Its extensive argumentation brought through the messages would be covered.

By 25 November 2006; there is no dispute presented.

You are amazing!!! You are using my arguments which justified my claims that there was a dispute. March 2, the deportation started, April 24, a general order of deportation was issued, from which Armenians had to be finally sent in the Zor district, basically in the camps. There was no Tehcir law by then, the Tehcir law followed Envers ciphered telegram to Talaat about the finality of the Armenian evacuation which followed the same month with the so-called law about those opposing the Ottoman war efforts which was then renaimed and simply called the so-called imigration law, few days later after this immigration law was implemented another law entering in application regarding the properties of those evacuated, that law specifically was about the Armenians and the law specifically was called the law of the Armenian abandoned properties. Obviously the dispute exist, since the evacuation of Kurds in Eastern zone opposing the government was following after this law was undoed in 1916. The evacuation of Muslims from Van had nothing to do with the law regarding those opposing the government war efforts, but rather under the law of war mobilisation, to conter Russian advance. You have yet to provide any evidences, since even Kamuran Gurun and various Turkish scholars who disagree with the genocide thesis does't deny that those laws were placed in application against the Armenians, they just justify it by claiming that Armenians backstabbed Turks. Fad (ix) 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of this text (such as backstabbed Turk) is part of the bigger picture, which he is welcomed to present them (with citations) under Armenian Genocide. All his points related to Tehcir Law is covered. --OttomanReference 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting that you document the cases that the Muslims were moved under the Tehcir law. Fad (ix) 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; The text will cover your argument, until I find the exact chipper number for the Muslim Millet.--OttomanReference 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, ask any skilled Arab about the ethymology of the word Tehcir, it might surprise you, proposing that it is an immigration law is enought to question the validity of this article. Fad (ix) 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated etymology of the Tehcir does not need to be reanalyzed in this article. This terminology had been scrutinized and published in many articles for the last 8 decades. You can write an article about etymology of Techir that and we can link it to this article. Thanks OttomanReference 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken, only has Halacoglu who had no prior credential in Ottoman language called it an immigration law, I have a friend in Turkey who teach history and research Ottoman history who testifies that all the Ottoman dictionnaries he posses none equal that word with immigration, but Halacoglu arrives fart something and poops the term immigration and decades of works are rewritten. Even Turkish government sites now recycle that crap while the Turkish government official translation (the 272 archives) was using the term deportation, in prior and other works it was relocation. So make your pick, Halacoglu is not given more importance than a dot in history, he is considered as a clown and probably even an embarassement for the current Turkish scholars. It was the tehcir law, and tehcir does not mean immigration, no one has ever heard it used that way, including my family members who still speak believe it or not Ottoman Turkish. I got that confirmed by two different Turks, both of which have Ottoman Turkish credentials. Tekil/tehcir doesn't mean anything less than deportation, and this is how it is translated in the majority of works, including the one with the 272 archives released by the Turkish government. Now, the question is, who is Halacoglu to be valid enough to dismiss the rest of scholarship. Afteral, it is the same individual who claims that only 56 thousand Armenians have died, from those less than 10,000 were killed, from Arab bedouens, Kurds and that Armenians have killed 520 thousand Turks. Fad (ix) 06:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I may spoonfeed you there since I doubt you will understand the point I was trying to make after trying to clarify it for you on various occasions. Search for the word tenkil (which is its Ottoman form) in any Ottoman dictionaries, it means to kick someone out, to move someone to a different location as a punishment, and even to annihilate the enemy. It does not mean immigration. So when I say 'this immigration law' or the 'so-called immigration law' I am being sarcastic (and it seems you did not get that part). When the term tenkil/tehcir was used as the law in practice during the martial court, it was clarified that it was used in the context of 'to annihilate the enemy.' So when you try claiming that it was a simple immigration measure under which Muslims and others immigrated, you are shooting on your feets, since even Ottoman records, included those 272 made public archives, and the subsequent laws attached to it (like the abandonned properties of the Armenians), or the order to not extend such laws to others etc; all make it clear that this law was introduced specifically against the Armenians. I doubt I can clarify more than this. Fad (ix) 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From ottoman Turkish dictionary:

TEHCİR: Yurdundan çıkarma, hicret ettirme, sürme. * Öğle vakti bir yere gitme.

Translation: Techir: Moving someone out of his home/home country, To move/migrate, deport, exile, to go somewhere in (mid)day time.

It has no meaning like punishment. and claiming that it means "'to annihilate the enemy" is simply ridiculous.neurobio 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And from when is modern Turkish Ottoman Turkish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I think he meant Ottoman Turkish/Republican Turkish dictionary. Otherwise we wouldn't need a dictionary now, would we? :) Baristarim 07:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to an ongoing edit war, I have fully protected this page for one week. While the page is protected, please use the talk page here to discuss changes and come to a consensus on what to do with the article. Please stay civil and don't make the argument personal. // Sean William 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this user keeps going all over wiki and removing Armenian Genocide tags. This constitutes vandalism.Hetoum 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean templates or something else? deniz^T_C 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean stuff that is in Category Armenian genocide he labels "highly disputable template removed" and also other stuff changes Armenian Genocide to Armenian rebellions, or wholly takes out the "G" word. See Musa Dagh, Kaymakli Monastery and Arabkir District for some examples. Hetoum 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Kaymakli Monastery should not have the template, it might be good to place the template only on the articles the template refers to. If both of the Armenian Genocide and Armenian rebellions are correct in the context, then you guys both should first try and reach consensus there. Without that, an editor might get quite pissed when his/her edits are reverted. Including both of the phrases "Arm. Genocide" and "Arm. rebellions" might be a good combination but I'm not sure you both would agree on that. deniz^T_C 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kaymakli obviously not for template, but he removes mention of Armenian Genocide in article and similar removals - look at the pages. As for the Armenian rebellions, the article I suspect will be dealt in time, as it constitutes original research by user ottoman reference, its disputable terminology, and the articles name doesn't actually reflect its content - it discusses Armenian question and national movement. Hetoum 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum Says "Armenian rebellions" This page is not the "Armenian rebellions" page and you should keep your arguments within the subject of the article. Rebellions is an internationally recognized word covering the activities of Armenian Revolutionary parties in the Ottoman Empire. Check the word "revolutionary" and the use of "rebellion", which explains everything. This terminology has been used even by the hardest Armenian National Historians. I know you are new to Armenian history, but try to give time to yourself reading beyond "Burning Tigris". A popular culture book. If you do that you will recognize that citations of that article coming from respected Armenian national historians. I also resent that you have not learn that wikipedia is not a place to wage a national war. There are no sides and no enemies as you think/say "suspect will be dealt in time". Have a nice day. --OttomanReference 13:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I have reverted the remove of the OR tag on Rights of subject of the law. There is no such reference. A reference of Coding Office, no 54-A/268 is given, unlinked, which could mean anything. In fact it is stated later in the article that following the law's expiry that the effects were ongoing. History shows that these internal deportations had permanent effects, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Interpreting the intent of the law is absolutly Original Research, stating the law is not. Offering an interpretation of the intent of the law, and then using the law itself as a reference is Original Research, as the law does not say "The Intention of this law is.." OR violation.

Additionally all 18 references in this article should be considered for deletion unless they can be backed up with real links, as it requires MAJOR OR to track them down. 24.7.91.244 11:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the POV tag to an omnibus tag as follows.24.7.91.244 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

   This article or section has multiple issues:
   * Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2007.
   * It may contain original research or unverified claims. Tagged since August 2007.
   * It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since August 2007.
   * It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text. Tagged since August 2007.
   Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Can you bring cited (not the gut feeling) from opposing side that the information presented in the article Techir Law is wrong. Or are you opposing without any specif cited opposition? Thanks. OttomanReference 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The archives codes in your question are open to public. I just choose the last code in the article and added a hard link to it. The interested readers can go the archive web side direct link to library interface regarding these documents]. Thanks. --OttomanReference 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better now, and no this is one issue where I am an outsider. Thank you for the recent edits, I was very concerned by the lack of verifiable references available to readers and editors such as me, who don't know the subject matter. It read like OR. It's still got a lot of problems, but is getting better - thanks. It can't can't hurt to link all such references - all I could see were unlinked numbers purporting to be to a legal statute. Given how hot the related issues are I was highly sceptical. I also like the revision on the Temporary issue - it is now clear, previously it read like an interpretation. 24.7.91.244 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent change

Angelpush your recent edit was reverted because it violated the WP:NPOV rule. You claim that it was cited, well I can cite that George W Bush is a reptile and drinks human blood. Before you revert please discuss your changes and come to consensus. Thank you for understanding. VartanM 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What is totally disputed? Which parts are original research. Also, why do you unnecessarily add allegedly etc, and make it POV? Controversial issues should not be at the beginning, it should be in the middle or near the end, just like almost every relevant article on Wikipedia. Deniz^T_C 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The majority position was rendered irrelevant and placed in a section for Controversial issues. The disputed tags were removed. While the minority position which is a FORK to the Armenian genocide article and is filled with OttomanReference analysis and original research is left passing as an encyclopedic article. I am pretty much sure that Anglepush is OttomanReference, the problem now is what argument will warrant a checkuser. VartanM 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the problem about pictures

What is the problem about pictures??--Qwl (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, they are not relevant to the article, which is about the Tehcir Law and not about killings of Turks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yes its relevant to this article. that pictures show the reason of Tehcir Law.--Qwl (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer proof? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces have Ottoman Archive Documents: Now Documents are in Military Archive everyone can see that pictures. some archive documents are published. you can install all of them from the Military Site (Here:[[1]]). The pictures are published on these academical documents. please see one of them on this document[2] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that picture. You can understand why Armenia dont discuss these events with Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwl (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of those links lead to a "cannot display the webpage" notice. In any case, I am not (at the moment) asking for proof that the pictures are genuine (i.e. that they depict ethnic Turks killed by ethnic Armenians), but rather for evidence that the "pictures show the reason of the Tehcir Law". Also, the Turkish government (inclusive of the Turkish Armed Forces) is a biased source for information related to the Armenian Genocide, and information regarding the genocide taken from Turkish government sources should generally be explicitly attributed to the government (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

you refuse before see the documents. Armenians sources are biased or not? you say i can accept all armenian documents without reliable sources. they are not biased. but you say i cant accept Turkey Ottoman archive documents that they are biased.

what a hypocrisy. you say we will never write deniers point of view?

Note i think there is problem. i will add these documnets different site.--Qwl (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you're referring, as I've never said anything about Armenian sources (which can also be biased, but they are not the ones at issue...), nor have I previously mentioned the documents except to say that they lead to "cannot display the webpage" notices. (Are you perhaps confusing me with another editor?) As for writing the deniers point of view, I do not claim that we will not or should not write it: in fact, that point of view is already presented in Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

that point of view is not presented in Denial of the Armenian Genocide. that page is seperated from main articel. prepared by some recognizer users and not allowed these documents. --Qwl (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that the denialist POV is not presented in the article? It is in the sections titled "Arguments brought forward" and "Assertions brought forward". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

my references are available now on military site. there are many archive documents in the site --Qwl (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The websites are now available, but as already noted, I am not (at the moment) questioning the authenticity of the images, but rather their relation to this article about the Tehcir Law. Also, as I mentioned, the Turkish government is a biased source for information related to the Armenian Genocide... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

i want to note to the article. how you decide a government document is biased. you must show realy good documents with references. --Qwl (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The government of Turkey (like the government of Armenia) has a conflict of interest when it comes to issues related to the Armenian Genocide. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

problem is on the define. all sides accept conflicts. one side define as a genocide. one side define as a massacre. one side refuse two of them. problem is on the article name and seeries. why MUST wikipedia accept extremist genocide word. and nobody cant write deniers arguments?? show me NPOV??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwl (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article uses neither "genocide" nor "massacre" in its title; as for the deniers arguments ... again, they are here. To be honest, I don't see how the issue of adequate representation of the denialist position is relevant to the inclusion of the image in this article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

may be you are right. My problem about Armenian Genocide and Denial of Armenian Genocide articles. but we need to explain this point of view in these articles.alternatively we can write a diffrent article like Killed Turks by Armenians During World War I. These pages are biased. see that rule:

POV_forks it says:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

and: all countries accept deads. some of the countries say these events are genocide, also some of the countries say these events are massacre dont say genocide and some of countries refuse two of them.

someone block my pictures with academical references. this is problem--Qwl (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Creating "Killed Turks by Armenians During World War I" article would be just that a POV FORK. As for your pictures, they were copied from a propaganda site, which is not academic to say the least. VartanM (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me the criterias of Propaganda sites? and here is Academical document: [3] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that pictures. --Qwl (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

please tell me how can I add these important pictures? which new/old article is suitable? i think these pictures are related to this article and the Denial of Armenian Genocide article. i think you advice me dont add. because these pics. break a taboo and propaganda.--Qwl (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

about these documents:

INSPECTION COMMITTEE

• Dr. Hv. Korg. Erdoğan KARAKUŞ
• Prof.Dr. Yusuf HALAÇOĞLU
• Prof.Dr. Hikmet ÖZDEMİR
• Doç.Dr. Yusuf SARINAY
• Dr.Öğ.Alb. Ahmet TETİK

Document Scanning

• Mesut GÜVENBAŞ
• Erhan KANDEMİR

--Qwl (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing about the settlement of only armenians in the tehcir law. --88.232.187.219 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Daunte Culpeppers?

The name Daunte Culpeppers appears in this article, and as far as I know, he is an American football player, and I'm pretty sure his name should be removed from this article. I am not 100% sure, so that is why I didn't remove it myself. Any comments? 75.12.127.104 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. I've removed it.  --Lambiam 13:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation of primary sources

Not many readers will know that BOA stands for Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi. Can these references to primary sources, written in a language and script few scholars today can comfortably read and interpret, be considered to offer verifiability? In offering interpretations – and citing a source in support of a claim, other than by way of a literal quotation, constitutes an interpretation – "original research" is bound to slip in. Did the editors who added these citations consult the archives themselves in person? If the citations were copied from some other source, that work should be cited.  --Lambiam 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tehcir Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426035934/http://fakulteler.atauni.edu.tr:80/ermenia/mndty.php?al=3 to http://fakulteler.atauni.edu.tr/ermenia/mndty.php?al=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Tehcir Law → Temporary Law of Deportation – The name "Tehcir Law" is hard to understand for English speakers and is used by only a minority of reliable sources, so is less recognizable to our readers. (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 10:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have done a search for different names of this law in Google Scholar results, adding "Armenians" to the search to filter out extraneous results:

• "Temporary Law of Deportation" 91 results
• "Tehcir Law" 67
• "Temporary Deportation Law" 18

NGRAMS also suggests that the name "Temporary Law of Deportation" is more common:[4]

Various searches show that this law is the primary topic of both "Temporary Law of Deportation" and "Temporary Deportation Law" (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved paragraph down to allow RMCD bot to read the timestamp. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Turkey has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Armenia has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• support enwiki is an English encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (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.