Talk:Armenian genocide

Concerning this obvious systemic bias of the article !

I myself look at this article as a most clear example of what a "systemic bias" could be. Since the article is heavily propagating the claims that an "Armenian Genocide" has occurred and under-representing the counterarguments which falsify these claims, I myself was going to tag the article with Template:Systemic bias such as the following: Template:Systemic bias The number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure. Total Muslim deaths and refugees during these centuries are estimated to be several millions. It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence took place, close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey. According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease. In the discussion about the Armenian Genocide, McCarthy denies the genocide and is considered as the leading pro-Turkish scholar.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Just because the Turks are Muslims while the Armenians are not, doesn't give a reason to ignore the millions of the Turks who were killed in the same period of time.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome on behalf of the little people also editing at Armenian Genocide. I understand your issues, but I'm afraid with the best of good faith this is an article on the Armenian Genocide and, frankly, a systemic bias is inevitable. But I'll check those references of yours and perhaps edit elsewhere about the issues you raise. c1cada (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no systemic bias. You have answered the concerns with your post. I will help; you have stated that "It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence (NOTE: Refers to the Turkish War of Independence, not the Greek one), close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey" "According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease." During the Balkan Wars and the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Muslims were killed. It's unrelated to the Armenian Genocide, as Ottoman Armenians didn't actively participate in WWI; they were discharged from the Ottoman Army. Concerning the numbers: you said in the beginning "the number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure.". I will kindly add that this is unsupported by reliable sources. Owen said 2 million. And that is during the span of 10 years (1912-1922). McCarthy said 10 million. And that is...between the years 1821–1922 (100 years - you have stated it), from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire; that means you just made a POV claim. The numbers used by McCarthy refer to Muslims (Ottoman Muslim subjects) massacred at wars with Russia, Persia, Greece, Serbia, and countries that broke away from the Ottoman Empire, definitely not "Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs". Note that the Genocide took place in 1 year. Spare the rest; the POV tag is definitely an insult to the victims. --92slim (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of human aggression against other humans is lamentable, but it is not unanalyzable. The word "genocide" does not simply mean "someone killing someone else because of his or her ethnic group." Deaths which result from wars between (say) Serbian Christians and Muslim Turks, which have been ongoing for over a thousand years, are not necessarily genocidal, even if ethnically based, or even if at particular moments individual campaigns have been genocidal. "Genocide" has a definition, which most scholars say fits what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia 100 years ago. If you want to claim that what you talk about was also "genocide", fine, find a scholarly source, and go to the article Genocide and add it there. The Armenians would be the first to admit that theirs was not the only genocide that ever occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Which victims are you concerned about? The 10 million Turks (mostly unarmed civilians) who were either massacred or deported because of their faith & ethnicity or the 500,000-1 million Armenians who were simply deported (without any act of massacring)?--95.141.20.198 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about all victims. I hope that if there are no Wiki articles for genocides that you are aware of, that you will go and start them. That would be a good thing. I also encourage you to initiate a section in this current article called "denial of genocide" or some such thing, with good sources. But be sure to go to the Wiki article Genocide and read that - perhaps that is where your fundamental disagreement is. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice propaganda there. 10 million Turks massacred "between 1821-1922" and 1 million Armenians massacred (not simply deported) in 1915 alone is a big proportional difference, as a matter of fact. --92slim (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this entire section should be deleted as off-topic. The OP created it as a substitute for his/her inability to place the Systematic Bias tag in the article, and as a substitute to placing valid justifications for that tag. This already over-extended talk page is not a suitable forum for other articles / other subjects discussions, and the OP has read the advice given so there is no reason to keep it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not bothered one way or the other. Loads of space on the servers and it is not emitting CO₂... well the recording of it anyway, though I can imagine the creation of it might well have been accompanied by copious venting of the stuff. c1cada (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert to stable version

This article has gone through a lot this past month. A lot of information has been added without consensus mostly by a user who is now topic banned. The harvard refs done by this user is also a disaster. They're not even properly done. I propose reverting this article to a more stable version. If there is any information we'd like to add, it should be done in a constructive and consensus building manner. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You should specify what version you want to revert to so other editors can do a comparison. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he means his own version of course! And since he is useing the word "disaster", it is worth remembering that the version he thinks preferable was such a disaster that it failed the GA appraisal at the first hurdle. I oppose any attempt by EtienneDolet to indulge in blind reverting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The version I propose to revert to is this: [1]. I don't have my own version of this article. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. On the other hand, the version we currently see is one that was heavily edited by a disruptive user who was recently topic banned under AA2. The harvard refs are a disaster. They don't include page numbers and they're not properly sorted. Huge chunks of information were added without consensus. Above all, the user was banned for doing all of this. If there is any information that should be added, it should be done so in a constructive matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By "your version" I mean the one you presented for GA assessment. It is not a valid editing act to make a blanket revert ([[2]]) of content just because that content was placed there by an editor subsequently blocked. Refs can be fixed. You need to state the specific content you would like to be removed and explain your reasons why you want it removed. Many of the differences are tiny one word changes that seem legitimate (I don't know who made them), some other bigger changes seem valid. For example, why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section? The Fatwa content also seems relevant, and again I don't know who added it. You know what I think of the "consensus" and what it has done to this article. I do not believe that this "consensus" you talk about is required to add properly referenced valid new content or to make legitimate changes to existing content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This version is not a GA quality article either. In fact, it's much worse. It has been heavily edited by a topic banned user who was banned for causing even more problems to this article than before. If there are any sections we should keep, it can be easily discussed here at the TP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, so we only need to discuss things we should keep, as opposed to discussing things we should delete? I doubt you mean that! My discussion input to start is that we should keep everything added between those two diffs unless proper arguments are presented for the removal of specific content. Please explain why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section, and so on? You cannot remove content just because it was put there by a topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph was unilaterally imposed by a disruptive editor who did not believe the genocide continued after 1916. The user has, for example, employed a variety of POV terms to that effect (i.e. 'Genocidal' as in genocide-like rather than 'genocide'). Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This mess of an article needs better structuring, a chronological structuring is appropriate, so I support the retention of the "Massacres after World War I" section. The religious component of the massacres needs to be addressed, so I support the retention of the Fatwa content (it is described as a declaration of Jihad, a Holy War, in other sources). Many of the other differences are correcting typos or just tiny changes in words that seem to mostly be changes for the better - so I support those being retained too. So I oppose any revert back to any earlier version. You have not presented any argument for the removal of content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that there must be a reversion made to reinstate a stable version. This current version, as I have already said, has many POV and referencing issues. I suggest reverting it to this version: [3]. I would also like to see some more community input on this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:c1cada was blocked so his disruptive edits can be safely reverted. --92slim (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

EtienneDolet. I made my position quite clear. I oppose any blanket revert. Despite that, you have gone ahead and broke basic Wikipedia rules by making exactly such blanket revert [4]. If opposition to such a proposed editing act has been expressed, you CANNOT mass delete content for no other reason than because it was put there by a subsequently topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he can. --92slim (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source Wikipedians may not know

International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, see [5]. This journal published research papers and reviews about the Armenian Genocide and genocide studies in general. I think that Wikipedians should utilize this prestigious source to make the article better reflect the current research trend - also to make the article closer to the truth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, they are using each and every Armenian source, including Mr Akçam, that support their stance, and those writers who dissent are called denialist, independently of their nationalities. --176.239.95.241 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To the above IP; hello! :) PS. Akcam is not Armenian :) --92slim (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Some say he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.239.33.90 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Turkish racists? Hello, possible sockpuppet of E4024 and very timely friend (or sockpuppet) of User:Tiptoeblabla. How are you doing? --92slim (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

An editor, 92Slim, has repeatedly attempted to insert unreferenced and unsuitable content into the article. [6], [7], [8], [9]. In these edits he has repeatedly inserted into the lead the claim that all of the 24 April arrested notables were killed, in some edits he claims that they were all killed on 24 April. In other edits he claims that they were all executed at a later date. These claims are contrary to the referenced content on Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. In other edits he has inserted an unreferenced claim that some were saved by "Turkish intellectuals" (he has been advised by another editor that such content, even if it were to be referenced, is unsuitable for the lead [10]). He has also been inserting unreferenced content that weasely implies that these arrests were a Turkish response to the Allied landings at Gallipoli because the dates coincided. Of course the dates do not coincide, and there is no reference for content stating that they did, or content stating or implying that there was any direct connection between the two events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done any of those things. The intellectuals were mainly executed per the sources (never mentioned 24th of April at all) and that some Turkish intellectuals (eg. Halide Edip) saved some of them. I smell butthurt. --92slim (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't done any of those things" - so I suppose the cited diffs are made up and I hacked into Wikipedia's servers! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I explained what I have done above. --92slim (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And the same unconstructive edits (i.e., adding blatant falsehoods) have been reinserted by Étienne Dolet. Reinserted without any justification given either here or in his typically vapid edit summaries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Read above, rinse and repeat. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, as opposed to your claims, the content I added of them being mainly executed (better said, the content you deleted) is referenced in Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. Now I'm adding it here too. --92slim (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So-called Armenian Genocide

There was a fact that happened in 24 April 1915.This fact was deportation law and 22 countries define this law as a Armenian genocide and there are a lot of misunderstanding about this fact. There were almost 1.100.000 Armenian who were living in the borders of Ottoman Empire according to Ottoman Empire archives in 1914 but some of the sources claims that there were 1.800.000 Armenian who were killed but this number is so far from truth.There are some exaggeration about this fact and I just want to share my idea. After the French Revolution between 1789-1792 there were national movement that changed the world as a result of this firstly empires was affected especially Ottoman Empire which has 72 nations in it. World War 1 between 1914-1918 the empire was facing with a lot of difficulties and Armenian was one of the nation who was using the difficulty times to do abundance.Initially some of the Armenian like Karakin Pastırmacıyan armed and founded several illegal cooperation like Taşnak Hınçak and began the join Russian army.In some cities the rebellious are held and one of them which important was Van Rebellion.After all this Ottoman's Ministry of the interior published a circular that was aim to collect the rebellion's weapon and avoid the another probable bad events in 24 April 1915.After that in Istanbul in 24-25 April night 235 rebellious arrested.After a few time that circular published the rebellious which was arrested was just reached 556.They were scientist that involved in rebellious actions and one of them was German ambassador Hengel.Of course this number increased gradually.With this this circular Ottoman Empire forced to rebellious Armenian to migration.When doing this also Ottoman Empire provided migration security,health security,settlement and all the thing to make this migration better and security.With all this precaution they prevent the probable disaster.Sometimes thousands people can be ignored to save the millions.I used Dr.Yusuf SARINAY's knowledge and Prof.Dr.Kemaleddin KUZUCU's book as a source in this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil MZN (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the 'ideas' of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Sources, not "beliefs". --92slim (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Massacres of Armenians in northwestern Iran

A huge amount of Armenians in Qajar Iran were also massacred during the war as described and referenced. Should the lede and infobox be adjusted according this, like on the Assyrian Genocide page? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Uniquely biased

I am a huge fan of the Wikipedia project, but this article is one of the most biased articles on here. This is really unworthy of this site. The article should at least mention, in its opening, the following:

1) that the genocide happened during WW1, when the Ottomans were facing invasions from the east and west. A reference to the fact that the Ottomans had lost most of its Christian subjects to nationalist movements and how those successes had inspired the Armenians. The article barely mentions the Armenian nationalist movement.

2) that the deportation of Armenians from Anatolia to Syria, specifically targeted the Armenians of eastern Anatolia. In other words, the hundreds of thousands of Armenians living outside of eastern Anatolia were never laid a hand upon. This is crucial for understanding the intent of the Ottomans. If genocide was the intent, why were the huge Armenian communities of cities like Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo never targeted for deportation or execution? Why did the Armenian churches of Istanbul and Izmir and other cities remain open? Why did Armenian politicians and officials remain in office, receiving their salaries and pensions just as muslims did?

3) even more crucial, it should mention the fact that hundreds of thousands of Armenians survived through the deportations to Syria. Again, if genocide was the intent, how come so many people survived these 'death marches'?

3) that there has been zero direct proof of an organized killing spree. There has been found not one Ottoman document calling for the killing of Armenians. All documents relating to the deportation call for Ottoman officials to safely escort the Armenians into Syria.

4) that the muslims of Anatolia lost over 2 million people. Most dying at the hands of Russian troops, but many also at the hands of Armenians, within and outside of the Ottoman borders. Millions more muslim refugees were pouring into Anatolia. This was not a one way street.

5) that the earliest Armenian sources estimated an Armenian death toll of around 300.000, which grew to an estimation of up to 1.5 million deaths, decades later. There should be an estimated death toll of 300.000 - 1.5 million. This is one of many instances where the editors nit pick on which sources they want to use, all in the name of selling one specific idea: that the events constitute a planned Holocaust.

6) some kind of reference to the fact that the bulk of sources used consist of Armenian sources and contemporaneous European ones. Sources with an undeniable prejudice.

This article skips through quite a few of these issues, and when it does deal with them, it buries it under a pile of prejudiced terminology. This entire article needs cleaning up and we should start with the terminology. Calling it the 'defense of Van' (in reality a rebellion) is propaganda of Goebels proportions. Too many people depend on wiki for information to have this stuff in it.