Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Toxic gas??

It reads, "Toxic gas: Dr. Ziya Fuad and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits reporting cases in which two school buildings were used to organize children and send them to the mezzanine to kill them with toxic gas equipment." I checked this reference articles and there is no such statement. No toxic gases. This statement has to be improved with a more serious reference. (57th and 58threferences have no relation with statement.) Otherwise the statement has to be removed from article. Entuluve (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source to check, however a quick internet search found something that appears similar (from http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6825) the text:

"Here is the first methodical introduction of gas chambers. A testimony of the gas chambers during the proceedings of the military tribunal was published in the Istanbul Newspaper Renaissance, 27 April 1919.
First we didn't realize what was happening. But one day we heard cries that abruptly ceased and were followed by a deathly silence. We then paid closer attention to what was happening. The baskets at the door of the "disinfection" hall told everything. It appears that Dr. Saib trapped the victims in a chamber equipped with some kind of toxic gas equipment with fatal effects. Those baskets were used elsewhere, such as at the Red Crescent Hospital, then the bodies of the dead or dying were disposed by dumping them in the Black Sea nearby."

Dadrian is cited as the source for this (presumably Dadrian's "The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I Genocide of Ottoman Armenians") Meowy 19:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This website that you linked here is obviously a racist website. And there is no real sources. Only rumors. Here you can find the source article that i criticised. http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/2/169.abstract

Even this article has not enough citations too, this topic is mentioned only as a rumor. No evidence.

So those are citated are completely weak evidences and must be considered. Wiki is a good foundation but we must check every sources, everybody gives any sources, and we do not know what is inside. Is it true or amazingly fake.

This is not history but only a story here.Entuluve (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody said anything for two weeks, I removed this false information from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entuluve (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited are both reliable. the last one, that 'you criticized', is an academic article. Gazifikator (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

However, it could be argued that the content is there for effect only (to make a rather heavy-handed comparison with the Holocaust), and is a case of undue weight. For every one person who died by toxic gas, how many hundred thousands were burnt alive, or died by blows of an axe, or through forced starvation or dehydration? Meowy 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that section again, I think my undue weight verdict was correct. It really sticks out as text just placed in the article for propaganda purposes. Because of that, together with the concern expressed about the citations, I think it is correct to have the section deleted and I have deleted it. In some future version of the article, when it is better written and more organised, maybe a small part of it can be restored. Meowy 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tone of a section

The section "study of.." has a sentence that starts: "For Turkish historians, supporting the national republican myth is essential...". This is effectively a statement/opinion in Wikipedia's voice that this is indeed a "myth" (according to whom?), that it is held by "republicans" (which?), and asserting that Turkish "historians" (which ones?)(just historians?) see it as "essential" for unity. All three claims are uncited and the tone is not neutral.

Similarly "The usual Turkish argument..." Who exactly has said what exactly? "The usual arguments" can come across as a non-neutral way of subtly disparaging speakers on one side of an issue, as spoken by the other side.

Can someone rewrite these two sentences in a better style? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

{{Disputed title}} Whatislife2012 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You can seek consensus merely by beginning a discussion on this talk page; making an Edit Request is not necessary. Before starting a discussion, however, please review past discussions, including the archives linked at the top of this page, and proceed only if you believe there is a reasonable chance of persuading a sufficient number of other editors. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Diranakir

Diranakir, you have been indulging in a disruptive low-level edit war on this article. You have repeatedly deleted reference content from the article and have replaced it with your own crudely-worded POV and OR material.

"Great Calamity" must remain as a translation for Medz Yeghern because it exists in a cited source. Is there something about that fact you do not understand? Stop deleting properly referenced content! You have been warned repeatedly about this in the edit summaries. Also, "Great Calamity needs to remain as the primary translation because, as was carefully explained to you many months ago, Google search results suggest that usage of "Great Calamity" is almost four times more common than "Great Crime" (and about 15% of all "Great Crime" usage is in the context of an argument about whether "Great Crime" should be use instead of "Great Calamity").

You have also been deleting accurate content and replacing it with inaccurate content for propagandistic reasons.

You added the text "systematic extermination of the Armenian population its historic homeland in Asia Minor" This is inaccurate. The historic homeland of the Armenian population is not "Asia Minor", and the majority of Armenians who were killed during the Armenian Genocide lived nowhere near their "historic homeland". I think that "Extermination" is also pov and insulting terminology to use (do you consider a word used to describe the killing of household pests suitable for the mass murder of humans?). When inserting your inaccurate content you deleted the accurate content: "systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire". That content also had a citation.

You added the text "was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation on death marches to the Syrian Desert of women, children, the elderly and infirm." Not only is this an inaccurate characterisation of the events, you actually give it a fake citation! When adding that inaccurate information you deleted the accurate content: "It was implemented through wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees." That particular sentence was arrived at after much discussion on the talk page and after very many small edit changes: it contains carefully-crafted nuances that you, with your very limited knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, seem incapable of understanding.

You added the text "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events". This is untrue – the word genocide was coined to describe all such massacres. When adding that inaccurate information you deleted the accurate content "The Armenian Genocide initiated Raphael Lemkin to invent the term genocide to describe such events" but you still kept the citation that went with that content, deceptively using it to support your own inaccurate claim.

If, after reading all of the above, you still decide to continue with your disruptive editing style, I think that sufficient evidence will exist to get you blocked permanently from editing this article. Meowy 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Response To Latest Criticisms

1. "Disruptive editing" is an accusation and not a fact.

2. Yeghern means crime. Medz Yeghern means Great Crime. That is a fact my sources prove and one that can be proved by many more sources, reputable and scholarly ones. There is no parity between crime and calamity in translating Medz Yeghern. Calamity is simply wrong, and there is definitely no basis for giving it priority.

3. The term "extermination" has been in the lead paragraph for many years but has occasioned no objection from Meowy until now. Furthermore, Meowy has misquoted the phrase containing "extermination" by omitting the very important preposition "from", e. g., "The Armenian Genocide. . . . was the systematic extermination of the Armenian population from its historic homeland in Asia Minor".

Meowy also makes the preposterous assertion that 'the majority of Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide lived nowhere near their "historic homeland" '.

4. I have provided solid references concerning the two phases of the genocide process. Meowy suggests I have given just one reference and calls it "fake", whereas I have given two, each of them from authoritative sources. Meowy is obliged to prove the accusation of "fake".

5. Meowy erroneously attributes to me the phrase concerning the coining of the term genocide and the reasons behind it. I had nothing to do with that text. Furthermore, Meowy's innovation on that phrase is ungrammatical in the extreme ("initiated Raphael Lemkin to invent. . . ."). 67.169.127.31 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 - disruptive editing is your repeated deletion of properly referenced content (the "Great Calamity" translation) from the article for don't like it reasons, plus your blind reverting of other edits to do it, and your refusal to accept (or even attempt to confront) facts like the Google search indicating that the "Great Calamity" translation is 4 times more common than the "Great Crime" one.

Point 2 - all that is just OR, as has been REPEATEDLY explained to you in the talk page. You cannot make your own personal translation of a phrase using a dictionary and insert it into an article.

Point 3 - this just reveals either your limited knowledge of the subject, or your aim of placing lies and propaganda into the article. Historical Armenia is not in "Asia Minor", by theend ofthe 19th-century most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire did not live in historical Armenia, and Kayseri, Sivas, Ankara, Mezirfon, Iznik, Samsun, Trabzon, Amasya, Adana, Antakya, and many other sites of massacres and deporations, are not in the "historic homeland" of Armenians.

Point 4 - you "reference" does not exist. There is no book named "Armenia" by Christopher Walker. I imagine you actually mean "Armenia - the Survival of a Nation" but the text in it makes no such specific claim, nor should such a general book be used when specialist poblications abound that give a far more detailed analysis of the process.

Point 5 - thanks to your blind reverting, you have reinserted that text into the article on THREE occasions - so you ARE responsible for that text. Meowy 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Response To Meowy's 5 points

1. Meowy's repeated attempts to justify the "Great Calamity" translation is paralleled by his/her repeated failure to supply any authoritative linguistic evidence in support of his/her position. References to privately viewed Google results only underscore how far Meowy is from recognizing the nature of a genuine source. In terms of disruptive editing, irresponsibly, recklessly, and repeatedly denying that Medz Yeghern means Great Crime shows a complete disregard, if not contempt, for linguistic accuracy.

2. Dictionaries are the only ultimately reliable sources for the determination of accuracy in translating a foreign term into English. Persistently denying that fact allows Meowy to make up his/her own version of reality on the fly.

3. The historic homeland of most of the Armenians exterminated in the Armenian Genocide was most definitely in Asia Minor, Meowy's word games aside. A glance at any historic map of the genocide will plainly show that. To say that where the Armenians lived for centuries--in the countless towns and villages they created in Asia Minor over the last thousand years--was not their homeland suggests they did not belong there in the first place. One can draw one's own conclusions about the implications of this interpretation.

Meowy has many times accused me of propaganda--and now lies-- but has never specified what that propaganda was, or whom it supposedly served. Another unfounded accusation and epithet from Meowy, nothing more.

4. Meowy is correct: The full title is "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation". The omission did not prevent Meowy from recognizing the source indicated and does not make the reference "fake". The book describes two phases of the genocide, as do the cited pages in the accompanying note taken from Toynbee, as do numerous other sources. That is how the genocide was carried out, though with some exceptions as in the case of the citizens of Chunkoush in Diarbekir province who were all killed by being thrown into the fathomless chasm called the Doudan about two hours walk away from their town.

5. I am not sure what Meowy means by "that text". If the "coining" line is what is meant, I will 1. repeat that I had nothing to do with writing it, and 2. that if Meowy means that in the process of reverting his/her changes to the first paragraph I reverted his/her inept and barely intelligible insertion into the line on "coining", I did no great disservice to the encyclopedia. The notes attached to that passage were already sufficient to describe Raphael Lemkin's role. Diranakir (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN you have deleted properly cited content from the article. What is it about accepted editing practices that you fail to understand? They have been explained to you often enough. The deleted content has been restored. And would you STOP making separate sections in this talk page for no reason. All related discussions should be contained in the same section. Meowy 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Meowy's latest edit shows how complete his/her refusal is to acknowledge the clear evidence of two dictionary citations, one from 1920 (Chakmajian) and one from 1970 (Kouyoumdjian). Instead, Meowy brushes the dictionaries off the table in favor of pushing forward a citation from one editorialist and the equivalent of "man-in-the-street interviews" (indeterminate Google results) as a sufficient basis for giving calamity precedence over crime. This is a serious distortion of the history of the Armenian Genocide and the response of the Armenian people to it. Up to this point Meowy has not provided one authoritative source proving that yeghern ever meant calamity in the period from the genocide to the present. A few more weeks should be sufficient for Meowy to find and produce reliable, verifiable proof for his/her notion that calamity is the correct translation of yeghern. I will be waiting to see. Diranakir (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur article rebuttal of genocide

There is an old article (1991) by Young Turks presenter Cenk Uygur which denies the existence of an Armenian genocide (http://www.webcitation.org/68YqvmgSY). Conributors to this article may be interested in responding to the points made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.145.20 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how 46.208.145.20 , in an unsigned comment on 12 October, can expect any improvement in the article by inviting contributors to respond to Uygur's sophomoric 1991 summation of Turkish government talking points, one in which he does not give readers enough particulars (dates, publication names, etc.) for them to check the accuracy of what he is saying for themselves. The following is a prime example:

Most influential in this line of propaganda was the book that U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgantheau wrote on the matter. Before he wrote his "story" though, he addressed a letter to President Woodrow Wilson asking him if it was a good idea to write a book that would be staunchly against the German and Turkish governments in an effort to rile the American people against them in war. Wilson approved the idea of initiating propaganda against these countries, and Morgantheau went on to write a book that Professor Heath Lowery characterizes as completely contradictory to Morgantheau's memoirs and his letters of the time period.

I am sure "unsigned" has an endless list of such articles to dust off and present here--solely with the objective of improving the article, of course--if there are any takers on the Uygur one. Diranakir (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I see the point in addressing an article written over 20 years ago by a minor internet celebrity/political talk show host. Especially considering that he was basically non-notable at the time the article was written, and has since completely changed his opinions regarding this and many other issues. --87.82.207.195 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkey is not the successor state of the Ottoman Empire

This language needs to be removed from the article. The Turkish Republic and Ottoman Empire coexisted for a brief period and fought as enemies, following World War I, with the struggle ending in the extinction of the Empire and the abolition of the titles of both Sultan and Caliph. The Republic is no more a successor to the Ottoman Empire, than the Ottoman Empire a successor to the Byzantine Empire.

Likewise, blaming the wrongs committed by the Ottoman Empire on the Republic -- its mortal enemy, no less (!) -- is a lot like blaming the wrongs of the Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire on Ottoman Turkey. This point needs to be clarified in the article and specific attention needs to be added to the detail of what wrongs against the Armenians were committed by the Republic, itself, after the Empire was abolished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.235.10 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The contributor who created the present section is continuing an improper practice which is turning into a pattern on this page and should be brought to an end as soon as possible, namely, the violation of the two elementary guidelines below:

Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages

-----------------------

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes. Diranakir (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottomans or Turks?

In the article "Ottoman," "Turkish," and "Turk" are used interchangably.

"Turk" or "Turkish" has two meanings:

1. An ethnic Turkic person.
2. A citizen of the Republic of Turkey.

Ottomans were a multi-ethnic peple. They weren't Turk or Turkish. There were many ethnic groups within Ottoman people including Muslim Armenians, Muslim Greeks, Muslim Serbians etc. There were Turks among them, too.

In the article, it is stated that "Turks genocided Armenians." Well, this is not true. If there was a genocide; Ottomans did it. Not "Turks".--85.104.68.206 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Analogously Holocaust did Nazis, not Germans. Am I right?

Couldn't stop myself... "Nazi" is a political view, aka Nazional Socialist... "German" is a nationality. Your analogy is totally irrelevant... 78.162.78.115 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

CUP was a political party as well.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.73 (talk)

---Dear 78.162.78.115, Nazi is not only political wiew, but also a political party who is real responsible of Holocaust. Hitler took the power by democratical voting! So If even more ordinary german people were participated criminal Nazi actes in second world war than ordinary turkish people in genocide of Armenians, I'm agree with "Holocaust did by Nazis, not Germans." or by German-Nazis if you want, but not all German people! Ordinary turkish people of today can't be still responsible of this genocide a hundert years later, they are only responsible of non-recognition of this crime. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.172.62 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The rule is this: For good deeds (add ethnic origin); for bad deeds use Ottoman or Turkish interchangebly. Need examples? There are plenty in the pages of WP... --E4024 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Change the beginning section

One day, I'll hope enlightenment will prevail on the matter. I am not a specialist, but most serious historians I know are cautious over the term of genocide when it comes to the deportations and massacres of civil Armenians that lived in a region that began to cooperate and sympathize with the Russians. Some Ottomans officials were even Armenians themselves and agreed with this war-time decision of deporting the population that sympathized with the ennemy for religious/nationalists reasons. Both Russians and Armenians were christians of the Orthodox Church. How come this article tends to be so biased in its beginning ? This should let people decide with facts. I consider it as a war crime and a crime against Humanity. But to me genocide really is something else, however ruthless was the deportation which was also a common way of handling rebelous populations in Europe for thousand of years of History. The intro section is thus hardly understandable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mass propaganda generator. Give unbiased exposé of facts a chance. A simple reader who sadly feels he has to say he's not turkish or anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.0.176.75 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The creator of section 10, "Change the beginning section" never makes clear what specific change he/she advocates. Instead we are presented with a mixed bag of complaints and accusations about the article, the hint that he is familiar with a host of serious historians, and the implication that just by virtue of living in a certain region all the Armenians there, including women and children who were barely aware of what the Russian or Turkish Empires were, were somehow guilty of siding with the enemy. So much for this contributor's longing for enlightenment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

Separating the books or articles by authors that do not support the "Genocide" claim under a subsection titled "Denialist works" goes beyond being a POV but fails to have academic honesty. I am not going to add many WP bluelinks here, not even one, because every editor that works on a contraversial area knows more or less which WP policies, principles, guidelines, rules and good practice are being violated in this article. Tagging as "denialist" any academic source also presents a lack of confidence in one's position. The discussion about "genocide" is not only a question of how many people died in this tragedy and under which conditions but also on what may be considered "genocide" or not from an academic point of view. The writers that may oppose the term genocide do not necessarily deny that thousands of Armenians (other than Turks and Kurds) have lost their lives in Ottoman Turkey during the First World War. Therefore if someone comes and defends an opinion different than "yours" (I am referring to any WP user, we may better say "ours") please do not ask them if they are "denying" that this many people died; because possibly their point is not that. After this introduction, I give a link to a valuable academic article on the issue, in which other than finding some new points of view on the "Genocide", we may also see a major criticism of a few sources we may have used to understand and explain the topic. I prefer to add the link here, in the TP, because I cannot add a valuable paper under a subsection titled "Denialist works" and have no intention to begin a war on changing things fundamentally. Those editors who wish to use the text as a source in the article are most welcome. Here: "The Armenian Question: Conflict, Trauma and Objectivity" by Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv of the University of Ankara, Faculty of Political Science. --E4024 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Section for Deletion

I suggest for the sake of sanity and common dicency (this whole article has surpassed all definitions of POV) certain sections to be deleted, particularly those alleding massacres on ludicrous scale for which sources are dubious, biased or based on allegations, furthermore proposing use of toxic gases or morphine overdosing (mind you morphine was probably badly needed else where in 1918) seems to some a good idea to spice it up, the only one thing missing is allegation of canibalism. Total lack of netural point of view. I prpose the below sections to be deleted due to lack of sufficient third party sources:

- Mass burnings

- Drowning

- Use of poison and drug overdoses

Hittit (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep them. In the future maybe some of the irredentists will look behind and be ashamed of how they destroyed WP for their petty interests... --E4024 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hittit can try to convince readers that his main concern is "sanity and common dicency", but he displays no qualifications in the field of psychology to lend credence to this humanistic purpose. His whole point is contained in his parenthetical comment about POV, which clearly reflects his wish to delete the entire Armenian Genocide article. That will never happen. The Armenian Genocide is a fact of history and its systematic denial by the Turkish state and certain writers who nourish that denial is also a fact of history. If Hittit wishes to present "the Turkish side" of Turkey's historic crime, he should begin from scratch, write the article and submit it to the encyclopedia for publication rather than try nibbling away at the Armenian Genocide article which has taken so much work to create. His expectation, even demand, that the article become a posting board for an endless list of denialist writers universally scorned by scholars specializing in the field is absurd beyond belief.

Diranakir (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When people turn Wikipedia into a hate board without the ability to produce neutral point of view then the whole idea of Wikipedia is watered down. This could come as a shock, but not all result of War propaganda is in reality truth, we should also be able to underline what is fact and what is the result of group memory and hear say. BTW if any one has sources on the figures of Armenians emigrating to France, US and other countries post World War it would be good to clarify, I fail to see any estimates of Ottoman Armenians outside Anatolia right after the First World War Hittit (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hittit equates any challenge to his preferences concerning fundamental sections of the article with hate speech without specifying what hate he is talking about. Would unquestioning acceptance of his proposals for the article seem like love? The disjointed comments which follow shed little light on the matter. Maybe he can state himself more clearly. Or does he think that branding an opposing view as "hate" is sufficient?

Diranakir (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Armenian denialists and falsification of sources

I added above a source which criticises Dadrian's history writing. Nobody, yes, nobody attempted to use that source. That one above by Türkkaya Ataöv and other sources (like Taha Akyol' "1915, Common Pain: Turks and Armenians" (in Turkish), 3rd edition, Doğan Kitap, Istanbul, 2009 pp. 55, 88, 94, 104, 199, 200) criticise Dadrian's objectivity and prove source and document falsification and misuse with convincing examples (for open minds) and what I see here is when I add a source by Dr. Yücel Güçlü -never claimed to be a denialist, even by Armenians, like the other two forgoing Turkish authors- is an attempt to hastily place it among the so-called "denialists" or try to hide the book pushing it down in "Further reading". (Suddenly a user feels a need to re-arrange those reading pieces... :-) ("Laugh when you cannot cry", used to say a wise man.) --E4024 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your past and most recent edits have exposed the particularly negative nature of most of your edits. This allergy to any mention of Turkish persecution of Armenians has manifested itself in your contributions on this and other article. You tried to delete a large quotation by an American eyewitness on the Hamidian Massacres page, and when I invited you to voice your views, you failed to provide any explanation on why it did not belong there. Already one editor has called you out for a bad faith nomination for deletion of an article about a family of Armenian painters. This article is not going to be subject to the whims of a fringe minority of editors whose own beliefs dictate that they consistently refer to the subject as the "so-called Armenian Genocide". If you have something constructive to add, please go ahead. But if you want to fudge the veracity of the genocide and thus mislead the readers who visit this page – that itself cannot be received as good faith.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User E4024 would better serve the interests of this page by stating his points in his own words and backing them up with brief and specific documentation rather than using the page to publicize voluminous exercises in a POV to which he subscribes but which he is incapable of adequately conveying on his own. Despite that reservation, I have taken a look at Mr. Ataov's masterpiece and have the following question for E4024:

Immediately following the first break in the text (marked by 3 asterisks), the author states that Vahakn Dadrian says that 1 million Armenians were put to death between 1894 and 1909. As a test of Ataov's scholarship, I would ask E4024 to clearly inform us by publication name, date, and page number where that purported statement by Dadrian is to be found.

Diranakir (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for E4024 to provide the particulars on Ataov's assertion about Dadrian's supposed statement mentioned above. If he cannot provide it, I have to assume he accepts anything Ataov says based on faith rather than knowledge. Ataov had all the opportunity in the world to provide the specific citation but did not. Is he engaging in scholarship or propaganda? Diranakir (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" massacres

The 3rd paragraph says the massacres were "indiscriminate by age or gender" but the first para says that the men were massacred or send to forced labour, while the women and children were sent on death marches. Surely this is discriminating on age and gender? I don't mean to be pedantic, but we need accurate language is such a highly charged topic. Ashmoo (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it means indiscriminate in the sense that, in most cases, neither the men nor the women (nor the children) were spared. The typical pattern that emerged from the massacres was that the population would be disarmed first, the able-bodied men would be marched out of town and then killed, followed by the uprooting of the women, children, elderly, and infirm. I think this article has a lot of room for improvement so I would not be opposed at all to a wording adjustment.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy in defining the issue is basic to any improvement in the article. The first paragraph deals with the genocide in general, not the nature of individual massacres. It describes the overall structure of the genocide. The 3rd paragraph adds detail to the fate of the second class of victims mentioned, e. g., women, children, elderly and infirm, who, in fact, were subjected to massacres all along their way to the Syrian desert, as well as at the end--if they arrived. The latter class of victims obviously included males, but not able-bodied ones. Therefore the massacres referred to in the 3rd paragraph were indeed indiscriminate. There will always be room for improvement in the wording of such a large subject, but false dichotomies should be avoided as a basis for making changes. Diranakir (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Denialists?

Shrigley said: Denialist is a fairly well-established term, firmly in line with the consensus among genocide scholars that it did exist, whereas this attempt at a descriptive title is confusing and leads credence to fringe views.

Genocide scholars? You mean Armenian historians, Taner Akcam? I wonder why one side considered better than the other - why would we listen Armenian historians and completely discard what Turkish historians have to say? Seems very biased! After all there are many historians who are not Turkish and write very objective books. But because the Armenian lobby and nationalists don't like this, they are called denialists. This is where Wikipedia becomes a very handy tool for spreading propaganda. And it does.

They don't deny the Armenian Genocide because they ignore evidence, they deny it because of the lack of evidence for it. As any scientist would reject a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/what-do-real-historians-and-experts-say

And this: http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/turkish-denial

Thats right, a word deny means they are ignorant and don't want to see evidence what was presented to them. In reality, those historians give arguments why they think events were not genocide. They don't DENY, they DİSAGREE - and it's not the same thing. --Ankara Kedisi 10:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Ankarakedileri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankarakediler (talk • contribs)

Two quotes from Ankarakediler:

1. "They don't deny the Armenian Genocide because they ignore evidence, they deny it because of the lack of evidence for it." Question: What kind of evidence do they lack?

2. "They don't DENY, they DİSAGREE". Question: Which is it, version 1. or version 2. ?

Diranakir (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Malizengin (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC) This article has full of 3rd party eyewitnesses to incidents which can be taken as proof to the Armenian genocide (i.e. a report on US newspaper which was reported by a reporter who didn't witness anything but heard the stories from someone) and books with reference to the documents prepared by the states such as UK, France, Russia or Ottoman Empire is taken as genocide denial. Who decides what is denial who is denier and why only reports/rumours supporting genocide claim is taken as facts but not the official documents.

Bodil Biørn

Bodil Biørn has her own page, but is generally unknown. I suggest expanding

> the missionary nurse Bodil Biørn

to

> the Norwegian missionary nurse Bodil Biørn

84.210.46.118 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the genocide ?

How can we describe the genocide ? What is the differences between genocide and massacre ? If the essential criteria is number, USA killed 200.000 people in Japan with atom bomb. Millions people have killed with plane attack which bombed the civilians and military bases without chose the targets by the end WW II in Japan and Berlin. Was it massacre or genocide ? Or just war ? So which situation is different in Armenian case ? The genocide was applied by Hitler and drawn the genocide parameter by it. In history, only one genocide was attempted by Nazis and that's it. If the numbers would significant, history will turn to garbage of genocides. You can not ignore the methodology in history. 1915 case is exactly massacre(even that carried out by Armenians before 1915 in Turkish villages) but don't forget, millions of Armenians send to Egypt by Ottoman and it cant be a method for doing genocide. This case is relatively connected with current political interests and history can not be determined with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.66.250 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, a contributor has abused the heading feature of this talk page for purely rhetorical purposes. This has made it necessary to present key material which the contributor could have found on his own if he had a genuine interest in the truth.

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;

• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Excerpt from an open letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Prime Minister Erdogan, Nov. 3, 2009

We are sending you this amended version of the Open Letter we wrote you in June 2005 to reiterate our objection to your insistence that there be a historical commission, in which Turkey would be involved. Because Turkey has denied the Armenian Genocide for the past nine decades, and currently under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, public affirmation of the genocide is a crime, it would seem impossible for Turkey to be part of a process that would assess whether or not Turkey committed a genocide against the Armenians in 1915.

Outside of your government, there is no doubt about the facts of the Armenian Genocide, therefore our concern is that your demand for a historical commission is political sleight of hand designed to deny those facts. Turkey has, in fact, shown no willingness to accept impartial judgments made by outside commissions. Five years ago, the Turkish members of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission pulled out of the commission after the arbitrator, the International Center for Transitional Justice, rendered an assessment that the events of 1915 were genocide. Diranakir (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Study of the Armenian Genocide section

One paragraph is on a completely different issue. Suggest it be deleted, since it says nothing about the genocide, or whether/how it happened, or the "study of" - it says nothing about any of these, but only about whether the aspirations were "legitimate" and whether these politicadl aspirations might (in the authors views) have done injustice to others in Turkey, etc. This paragraph: "British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, whose 1917 report remains a critical primary source, changed his evaluation later in life, concluding, "These ... Armenian political aspirations had not been legitimate ... Their aspirations did not merely threaten to break up the Turkish Empire; they could not be fulfilled without doing grave injustice to the Turkish people itself".[117]" As noted, this says nothing about the genocide, only about what the author's views are about the "political aspirations" - hence the paragraph should be deleted - at least, deleted from this section on "Study of the..Genocide" Harel (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the duties of politicians ? Write History ? Armenian Lobbies are pushing for want to see Turkey on gallows and this process is implementing with politics. Can we sure that we have enough source that Turkey had a genocide crime ? Who decide it ? This is historians duty but please, how many people is working in Turkey to prove it ? What is methodology to prove it ? Turkish historians called a lot of time for a common commission in order to seek it. Anything in history, must be seek in where the case had been occurred with serious arguments. Judgement can not do with superficial assertions. The deportation decide and formal correspondences were published, it isn't look like deportation of Jewish to exterminate camps and correspondences were not about "genocide". Did Ottoman apply the theory of genocide over Armenians ? Where were the ovens, formal decides ? In the middle age, Ottoman killed many of Alawi Turks, give their child to others and deported-separated them because they were rebels. Not just Ottoman, many imperial, state, tribes did it. The genocide theory was developed by Hitler and applied by Nazis. So, the parameters of genocide was determined there, it was the first and only one(for me). Can we say that "USA did genocide in Japan". Three acts committed exactly; a,b and c. We may say Soviets did genocide in Berlin, soviets soldiers killed many German and rape million of German women. I thought, many tribe in history acted those five criteria exactly, they killed, took child... Is there any historical document which was wrote by Ottoman's officials about consume the "Armenian Race". Did they know the what is mean "genocide" ? This must be seek by historians, with a serious methodology in "where the case occurred". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.64.133 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing such things; it is a talk page for discussing matters explicitly related to developing and maintaining the associated article. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, that's fine. Please see Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, as well as this policy, for more information. Rivertorch (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many red links

Now there are far too many red links in this article, compared to its importance and classification. Can somebody neutral remove them or create articles? Bearian (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is a pretty big one, and besides, it only has 15 or so redlinks (which is a small number in proportion). Red links may become blue links in the future, anyway, so I'd suggest leaving them as is. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus about article

From my experience in last 3 days, current practice about editing this article is Nothing goes to this article unless it supports Armenian Genocide

This article is about controversial historical topic. But current article on wikipedia only contains historical view in support of Armenian Genocide, and any reference to any official document, to any book is removed by act of vandalism by different users. For example,

1. I have entered an excerpt from a official British document written in 1860 written by British consul to Ottoman Empire. That was removed by Chauahuasachca, Epicgenius, Proudbolsahye with different reasons, some of the reasons given is

• Horrible English: Interesting that British consul's report has horrible English, therefore this is just mere excuse to remove.
• Excessive material : this is very vague reason. What we are talking about here is an official document of British Empire of that time and related to article.

I believe users here should agree on basic principles such as references to real documents (no matter what your personal view is on the subject.) As long as a document gives some more information on the article, even if the content of the document doesn't support your personal view on the subject.

Currently, there are references to websites which express personal views with no reference to books/documents. On the other hand, references to real documents are removed constantly only because it doesn't reflect the personal views of some users.

I would suggest that users not to remove references to the documents/books without prior discussion on talk page.

and would appreciate comments of Chauahuasachca, Epicgenius, and Proudbolsahye on the subject. Malizengin (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view I think that the article should contain only information related to the Armenian Genocide, whether it is supportive of the genocide or not. The article shouldn't be biased anyway, it needs to have a neutral point of view. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes the article does present information on the Armenian Genocide and only the Armenian Genocide. This article presents the Genocide as a fact and not a debate which needs to incorporate various different POV's. Denialist literature and POV's can all go to the Armenian Genocide denial page and add their additions there (although there are limitations to that as well). Trying to incorporate every view point, whether it be Kurdish, Turkish, Russian, and etc. will make this article utterly confusing and unnecessarily large, let alone the fact that it is not considered a debate in observance of the general consensus of Wikipedia regarding the subject. Hence, it is for this reason there are two articles.

When it comes to these additions, I have already mentioned on my TP that the section describing the lives of Armenians throughout the Ottoman Empire is reserved for only the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. This does not mean that their lives should be comparatively analyzed with their Muslim neighbors and etc. Basically, the section must remain WP:RELEVANT. These additions are far from that. One source, which is nothing but a speech of a Senator from a British Parliamentary debate in the House of Commons, does not even mention a word of Armenians and thus describes the rights of all Christians in comparison to Muslims in a rather broad tone, which is a far cry from the mere intent of the section as describing solely lives of Armenians. The information within the Austin Henry Layard addition Malizengin tried to add is something that is already discussed with detail and examples in the preceding paragraph: "With the exception of the empire's urban centers and the extremely wealthy, Constantinople-based Amira class, a social elite whose members included the Duzians (Directors of the Imperial Mint), the Balyans (Chief Imperial Architects) and the Dadians (Superintendent of the Gunpowder Mills and manager of industrial factories), most Armenians..."

Malizengin has tried to pinpoint that the sentence "There, the Armenians were subject to the whims of their Turkish and Kurdish neighbors, who would regularly overtax them..." is also a comparative statement on my TP. This is far from the case. This statement describes what Armenians were subjected to. It does not mention in anyway that Armenians were worse or better than the Turks or Kurds in that regard. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Harper's statistical gazetteer

This is irrelevant, also the statistic does not include all Turkish Armenia and furthermore the population provided include the whole population not only Armenians: including a great variety of tribes & races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bodil Biørn section?

I don't understand why Bodil Biørn stands out above the rest of the witnesses to the Armenian Genocide. I think its misleading to have just one of these witnesses talked about. I propose removing the section or make a new section which highlights many different witnesses and their rules in the Genocide. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Settlement of muhaijirs

(quote section 2.3) "As many as 850,000 of these refugees were settled in areas where the Armenians were resident from the period of 1878–1904."

I think this means "From 1878 to 1904 as many as 850,000 of these refugees were settled in areas where the Armenians" were important before 1878 and remained until after 1904, or something like that. --P64 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian and Ottoman Empires

--and Persian, I learned subsequently, although Armenians in the Persianate were few in number after 1828/29, when the modern northern border of Iran at the Aras River was established following the last of the Russo-Persian Wars. (Somewhere we say that 30,000 Armenians who remained in NW Iran moved N to Russian Armenia.) --P64 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't provide any sense of how many Armenians, or what share, lived in the Russian Empire as of April 1915.

--or at the start of war in 1877, after the final peace in 1878 (Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)), or when the Russian Army left the field in 1917 (Russian Empire#Territory development) --to name three other interesting moments

If I understand the maps here and at Erzurum Province, much territory from the 1914 Russian Empire (and some from 1914 Persia?)[No] --with large Armenian population at that time, I infer-- become part of Turkey sometime later. This may be most of the five modern provinces north and east of Erzurum Province.

Most of those provinces, yes (beige and unmarked on this map). Much more territory was captured by Russian (including Armenian) forces 1915 to 1917 (map, Republic of Van). -P64

Were the territories contested by the two Empires between 1877 and 1917 mountainous with relatively few people, while most Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire thruout?

No, albeit high in elevation above the seacoast. Thh Greater Caucasus and Lesser Caucasus mountains (snow-covered in the photo) were previously acquired by Russia in annexation of Georgia and wars with Iran and Circassia.

Perhaps we have some Imperial maps that will help. --P64 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For three territorial maps (not elevation or population) most relevant here, see Russian Armenia, Armenian reform package, Republic of Van. For topography, Caucasus Mountains. For Armenian population distribution, the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia map just below. --P64 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the 1897 Russian Empire Census, there were 1,173,096 persons whose native language was Armenian, which basically is the number of Armenians at the time, although some Armenian sources give higher numbers. For example, the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia (1987 volume I think) (see map) puts the total number of Armenians in 1914 at 4.47 million, of which 45.9% in Russia, 45.4% in the Ottoman Empire and 8.7% elsewhere. This can be considered a highly reliable source by the way.

Were the territories contested by the two Empires between 1877 and 1917 mountainous with relatively few people, while most Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire thruout? Not really, the Armenian Highland is mountainous, but people live throughout the region. The area contested between Russia and Turkey in 1877-78 was mostly the Kars Oblast and the area around the city of Igdir. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For this article it may be enough to convey that about half of Armenians lived in O.E., about half in R.E. [during 1878 to 1914].

Now I have read several other articles and perused numerous maps. Briefly, here are three articles (especially the linked sections) very instructive about the recent background. Russian Armenia; Armenian Question#Origin; Ottoman Armenia#Reform implementation, 1860s–1880s.

Already by the 1700s, however, much of Armenia and all of the Soviet or modern territory was beyond the eastern frontier of the Ottoman Empire, in the region dominated by Persia/Iran (Afsharid dynasty) that Russia gradually gained in Russo-Persian Wars. There Ottomans ruled only during the 1500s-1600s, approximately.

--P64 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For the very big picture, read Armenians in the Persianate, lead paragraph.

These remarks, mainly interspersed above, concern this article only indirectly. My notes provide background, after reading dozens of articles and maps, focusing on my own geographical misconceptions of two days ago. --P64 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Armenian reform package

This article should somehow bring the 1914 Armenian reform package into the account. And Armenian congress at Erzurum. At least one apt sentence for each, with links of course. Probably this should be section 2.4. --P64 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Kemal Ataturk?

I find it highly distressing that no mention is made of Kemal Ataturk's part leading the Turkish forces during the genocide. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.htmlTerabiel (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an incredibly biased website that has no place whatsoever as a source on Wikipedia. I am interested though in why there is no mention of Ataturk in the article, even a statement of where he was during the genocide if he had no involvement - it is fairly important given his role in the war of independence, the founding of the republic, and the presidency, and the fact that the genocide occurred so shortly before his ascendency. 60.225.33.120 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2013

Also, hearing that things were "my problem" was the last reason why I used the help desk. I was expecting to solve this issue satisfying all parties.

194.27.125.164 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Another cultural reference to add

I came to this article because I am reading the novel "The Sandcastle Girls" by Chris Bohjalian, which is based on the historical context of the Armenian Massacre. Both because the novel is rooted in and respectful of this history and and because Mr. Bohjalian is an American author of Armenian descent, I wanted to recommend that it be mentioned in the cultural section of the article. Thank you. 159.250.64.237 (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Naomi Klayman

See Armenian Genocide in culture. Feel free to add the work to that article. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 154

The Geofferey Robertson QC article no longer on the given website. The document can however be found at http://groong.usc.edu/Geoffrey-Robertson-QC-Genocide.pdf if someone would like to make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.196.1 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ZIONISM AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

The plans of the 1915-23 Armenian Genocide, where a million and half Armenians perished in a barbaric way in their ancestral lands in modern Turkey, actually were drawn up and were in place by the year 1910 or 1912.

There is the book "Inner Folds of the Ottoman Revolution" written by Mevlan Zadeh Rifat in Turkish and published in 1929, the author, a pro-sultan Turk, claims that the "Armenian genocide was decided in August 1910 and October 1911, by a Young Turk committee composed entirely of displaced Balkan Jews in the format of a syncretist Jewish-Muslim sect which included Talaat, Enver, Behaeddin Shakir, Jemal, and Nizam posting as Muslims. It met in the Rothschild-funded Grand Orient loge/hotel of Salonika." Syncretism means a combination of different forms of belief or practice; masonism fits that description. As the masons started the 1897 revolution in France with the cry "liberty, fraternity, equality," Young Turks used the same slogan in their revolution of 1908.

A 1994 conference paper/lecture by Joseph Brewda of Schiller Institute entitled "Palmerson launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East " claims the founder of the Young Turks to be a certain Jew by the name of Emmanuel Carasso. He states: "Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called 'Macedonia Resurrected.' The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members."

Further on Mr. Brewda says: "During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I." It is ironic that four centuries after the Turkish sultans welcomed the expelled European Jews into Turkey, certain Jews belonging to secret societies and to Zionism will kick the sultan out of power early in 20th century, destroy the Ottoman Empire, and celebrated their victory by massacring by proxy almost the whole Christian Armenian people, one million and half Armenians; half million Greeks; and half million Christian Assyrians & Arameans.

In 1982, after the Israeli army conquered Lebanon, they celebrated their victory by massacring by proxy children and women in the Palestinian camp of Shattila, in Lebanon, by allowing Lebanese Phalanger militia fighters to move into the camp for two days and murder its inhabitants. Eighty percent of the camp were killed. Nearly all of the dead were old men, women and children and all of them had been unarmed. Not one gun, not one knife was found in their possession, claims a Palestinian witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.60.237 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is based on published material by credible sources - e.g. historians and similar academics. We do not use material from batshit-crazy sources like the Schiller Institute - a front organisation for the antisemitic LaRouche movement. As for that happened at Shattila, it is of no relevance whatsoever to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs). Well said. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with unsigned user at 99.104.60.237. Admonish AndyTheGrump that antisemitism and falsehood are two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenab6 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Denialist literature

Moving this to Armenian Genocide denial#Further reading, because it perhaps does belong there. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yerevanci It's concealing. People have reason. They can judge the information. Please don't cover it.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

About the Missing Motivation Section of the Genocide/Massacre

I think the motivation why the genocide occured is mentioned in the article just in one sentence which seems like a mere comment. The article is mostly about the incidents. This article needs a section like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Motivation . Without it, it cannot be objective. (CoffeeBreak 10:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantikadam (talk • contribs)

Most scholars?

"most genocide scholars and historians accept this view" isn't an encyclopedic expression. There are many historians and authors like gilles veinstein, guenter lewy, stanford shaw, justin mccarthy, eberhard jackel, levon panos dabagyan, bernard lewis. Instead of "Most", we can use numerous or many.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the statement is very well sourced. If you have a problem with the sources, that's an entirely different issue. You will have to appeal WP:RS for that one. As for the scholars you named, they do not constitute many or most of the scholarship behind the Armenian Genocide. As Wikipedians, we are not in a position to state such an opinion unless we have a source that indeed states that those collection of historians constitute the majority. In fact, due to their denial, those scholars have been refused by many academic journals and have had no choice other choice but to publish independent works rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles with an academic consensus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Armenian Holocaust"

On the subject of recent addition of the also known as term "Armenian Holocast", is there any verifiable source that says that this is commonly enough referred to as the "Armenian Holocaust" other than the typical book title that is cited in the reference? All a Google search returns for me is the title of this book and deniers who are using the phrase for exaggeration to criticize people who promote recognition of the Genocide. Ithinkicahn (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've heard the term before. I don't think it's a common alternative word. The word may have been more frequently used prior to the invention of the word "genocide" by Raphael Lemkin in 1948. However, I don't think it's a widely used term today. I think Diranakir's edit merits a revert until s/he can kind us an WP:RS to back up his statement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Google Books has 3,070 results for "Armenian Holocaust" [1], including uses by Richard Hovannisian,[2] Sedat Laçiner [3], Yair Auron [4] and others. Numerous international news sources have mentions of that term, including The Independent, Haaretz, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times. Now, I don't think Hovannisian or Auron are Armenian Genocide deniers (don't know about Laçiner, but his article suggests that he is a denier). --Երևանցի ^talk 17:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't make that revert without consensus. The question is if it's organically and popularly used to refer to the incident as a primary name, not as a "gimmicky title", as book titles and articles are wont to do. Of the results you linked, the first is a book title, the second is by a genocide denier mocking the term, and the third is part of a quote used in the book by someone other than the author, who had mentioned the "Jewish Holocaust" in the previous sentence and was comparing it to that, not using it as a proper term for the genocide. (EDIT: you seem to have reverted regardless of the discussion) Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a popular concept here on Wikipedia called Be bold. And I followed it. The "Jewish Holocaust" is only mentioned in two sources (Haaretz, Independent) and Jewish is specified only to make distinction. What about the other sources? I'd argue that its use just by Hovannisian and Auron is enough to make it notable. Both are renowned historians who have extensively written on the Armenian Genocide. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Both Yerevantsi and Ithinkicahn bring up valid points. I personally think we should leave it as is until a 3rd party editor, who is experienced in these matters, joins this discussion. That way we can have a clearer understanding as to what the community wants and feels is right. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Be bold" doesn't mean ascribe alternative names to highly viewed articles that aren't confirmed. The 3 sources I was talking about WERE Hovannisian, Laçiner, and Auron. None of them use it in a way that indicates common usage as an actual name for the incident. I'll be more specific.

• Hovannisian – a book title. Not an actual name for it. Book titles use puns and neologisms constantly. This is one of them.
• Laçiner – mocking the term "Armenian Holocaust".
• Auron – the phrase "Armenian Holocaust" is part of a quote used in the book by someone other than the author, who had mentioned the "Jewish Holocaust" in the previous sentence and was comparing it to that, not using it as a proper term for the genocide.

Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A book by a distiguished author is not of any significance? Auron mentions it 18 times, please look at other mentions too. On p. 183 he cites an article by Israel Charny (another genocide expert). --Երևանցի ^talk 21:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In defense of the term "Armenian Holocaust"

1) In the main article itself there are at least 6 uses of the word holocaust applied to 1915. One of them is from Bernard Lewis.

2) Samantha Power uses the term in the caption to her column here: http://hnn.us/article/43848

3) As late as 2007, Italian historian and journalist Alberto Rosselli publishedL’Olocausto armeno (The Armenian Holocaust), which reached its third edition in 2011.

4) Contributor ithinkicahn's dismissal of Hovannisian's whole book for supposedly having a "typical book title" barely deserves comment. What is a "typical book title"?

5) "Common use" is not a standard that can be mechanically applied to Armenian matters. The purpose of the article is to inform, give historical perspective, That is what the alternative terms after Genocide do.

6) The WP:RS page says nothing about common use. It does urge common sense.

7) To Étienne Dolet: Please be advised that the word genocide was first used in 1944, not 1948.

Diranakir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Observation on Ithinkicahn's comment about the Auron quotation :

Ithinkicahn has completely misread the quotation from the Auron book. Auron approvingly quotes Uri Avneri using the term Armenian Holocaust [yes, as a proper noun, all caps] precisely because it illustrates his [Auron's] point that the word holocaust is not owned by just one victim group. Diranakir (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, finally, the person who added the term. The page Names of the Holocaust notes that "The term [Holocaust] became increasingly widespread as a synonym for "genocide" in the last decades of the 20th century to refer to mass murders in the form "X holocaust" (e.g. "Rwandan holocaust"). Examples are Rwanda, the Ukraine under Stalin, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia." However, the page earlier also notes that "In the early twentieth century, Winston Churchill and other contemporaneous writers used it before World War II to describe the Armenian Genocide of World War I. The Armenian Genocide is referenced in the title of a 1922 poem "The Holocaust" (published as a booklet) and the 1923 book "The Smyrna Holocaust" deals with arson and massacre of Armenians." So I'll concede the point, but it still appears as if "X Holocaust" is a neologism. Should the Rwandan Genocide be extended with an alternative term "Rwandan Holocaust"? Should the Holodomor be extended with the alternative term "Ukrainian Holocaust", per this1, this2, and this3? Should the Nanking Massacre be termed as the "Chinese Holocaust" on its page because there is a Chinese Holocaust Museum in San Francisco, and this? Adding "Holocaust" to anything seems to be a quick way to create a clever neologism for book titles, articles, etc. without it actually being used organically as a name for the incidents. Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fisk has a lengthy chapter in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East titled "The Armenian Holocaust," and devotes some amount of space on the appropriateness of the word for the Armenian Genocide.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To "Ithinkicahn": A long response is not necessarily a true response and cannot hide the fact that you ignored my last point about the quotation from Auron. Do you concede that you were wrong on that point? Let's clear that up right now. Diranakir (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

typo

hey i'm not good with wikipedia and this page is locked or i'd change it but the article has a typo in it - "presursor" is used instead of "precursor" so i guess just change that and then delete this?

We'll change it. Thanks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing preposition

Section Recognition of the Genocide, fourth sentence, begins "The Armenian Assembly of America (AAA)...": at the end of that sentence, "...and the reduction of economic and military assistance for Turkey." The "of" needs to be inserted. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. WilyD 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Medz Yeghern

Yerevantsi: Your addition of "Great Calamity" will not stand. The article you cite argues precisely the opposite of what you have used its title for. The term "Great Calamity" was placed in quotation marks for a reason, i. e., to indicate that the term was going to be analyzed and rejected by Dr. Matiossian as a denialist term. Your totally irresponsible use of the title is a gross disservice to the readership of Wikipedia and to the struggle over the truth concerning the Armenian Genocide.Diranakir (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Calamity is used by a number of sources. See here Plus, "Medz Yeghern" is clearly the term, not "Great Crime" or "Great Calamity". Medz Yeghern has been used in speeches by Pope John Paul II in his prayer in Tsitsernakaerd in 2001[5], by President Obama[6] and other highly significant figures. See also The Holocaust article. It is "Shoah" that is bold not its translation: "the catastrophe". --Երևանցի ^talk 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, there is no basis in the modern Armenian language ( specifying the period from 1915 until the present) for translating yeghern as calamity. Because a number of individuals mistakenly translate the term as calamity does not make it correct. Zero times 10 is zero. The cases you cite of "calamity" supposedly being used by the Pope and the President were no such things. They were erroneous ascriptions of that meaning on the part of journalists who didn't know what they were talking about.

I hope we can agree that the Armenian language itself is the ultimate source of meaning :for Armenian words. I hope you will agree that the meaning of Armenian words cannot be put up for a vote of the general world population, nor the words of any given language for that matter. Footnote number 9 defining the :term yeghern says it all. Let me quote it here: H. H. Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian (Yeran Press, Boston, 1920), "Crime" defined as Եղեռն (Yeghern), p. 350.; M. Kouyoumdjian,A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English (Atlas Press, Beirut, 1970), Եղեռն (yeghern) defined as "crime", p. 312 Diranakir (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, you were right in saying that the Pope and the President used "Medz Yeghern". I misunderstood your point. I will concede that Medz Yeghern should be first and in bold, followed by "Great Crime" in parenthesis. But I do not agree to including "Great Calamity" in the parenthesis as a supposed translation. Please see the rest of my remarks above in the 2nd paragraph. Diranakir (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of "genocide" in Armenian

The current look of the word "genocide" in Armenian (ցեղասպանություն), even with the additional footnote about the Classical Armenian spelling, is inaccurate for the following basic reasons: 1) The first citation of the word in Armenian, although logically without the meaning of "genocide," is ցեղասպանութիւն, from a book published in Paris by a survivor of the genocide; 2) The first time the word was used in Armenian with the meaning "genocide" was in 1945, again by a survivor of the genocide, and again in Paris: «Ցեղասպանութիւն», Haratch (Paris), December 9, 1945, p. 1 (editorial written by Shavarsh Missakian to explain the use of the word by the Nuremberg tribunal), reprinted in Յառաջ - 50 (Haratch - 50), Paris, 1975, p. 185-186; 3) The word started to be used in Soviet Armenia and, therefore, written with Soviet Armenian orthography (ցեղասպանություն), in the 1960s. Moreover, Wikipedia has ցեղասպանութիւն in other languages. Please avoid any argument that the Soviet Armenian spelling is the "official" one in the Republic of Armenia, or it is the spelling of Eastern Armenian. It is not (dozens of books are published every year in the Republic of Armenia in "traditional" spelling, in both Western and Eastern Armenian), and it is not (the Armenian written in Iran is not Western Armenian).

Armen Ohanian (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid any argument that the Soviet Armenian spelling is the "official" one in the Republic of Armenia, or it is the spelling of Eastern Armenian. You're really making me laugh. That argument IS the most important argument. Please tell me in what country and what official organizations or institutions use the classical spelling? I mean besides minor diaspora organizations. The reformed spelling is not a "Soviet" orthography as you and others claim.

And to close this discussion. A simple Google search reveals 387,000 results for "Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն" and 25,700 results for "Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն". This is a ratio of 15:1. As soon as the classical spelling exceeds the reformed one, you can come back and we can continue this discussion. Until then, the classical spelling can stay as a footnote. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to see whether you had anything to argue about 1), 2) and 3). It seems that you don't; I specifically said "avoid any argument . . ." knowing that you would cling from the "most important." A few additional notes: 1) the orthography that was approved in 1922 for political reasons -- I didn't say that, the Commissar of Education of the Soviet Armenian Republic said it -- and reformed in 1940 corresponds to the period of history known as Soviet Armenia (1920-1991); 2) Your argument about Google search makes me laugh in the same way; it reminds me of someone who years ago used the same argument (Google search!) to try to "ground" the ludicrous "translation" Great Calamity in this encyclopedia. By the way, my simple Google search of «Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն» gave 6,640,000 vs. 5,910,000 for «Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն», while «Հայկական Ցեղասպանություն» showed 4,730,000 vs. «Հայկական Ցեղասպանութիւն», 4,700,000. I leave the ratio calculation to you; in any case, it isn't even 1,5:1. 3) For a "minor diaspora organization," see the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Catholic and Evangelical hierarchies throughout the world, including Armenia.

Armen Ohanian (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stating "Please avoid any argument that..." clearly shows that you know there is a solid argument against yours and you try you lessen its weight. Your first two arguments are not explaining how they are relevant to this discussion. Wasn't (almost) every Armenian word originally written in classical orthography? Not many Armenian words were invented after the 1920s, except some technological and similar terms. This is doesn't prove anything.

I'd like to see a source where the Armenian Apostolic Church (i.e. the Etchmiadzin See, because that is the central see and not Cilicia or Bolis, which obviously use Western Armenian) uses the classical spelling of "genocide".

The Catholic and Evangelical churches are still minor. Their followers are a small minority of the global Armenian population.

You should Google the two phrases within quotation marks, which limits the search to those exact words. see more here --Երևանցի ^talk 21:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My statement just wanted to avoid your so-called "solid" argument and see whether you could offer anything past beyond the usual singsong of the spelling. Obviously, you can't. My first two points explain very clearly their relevance. (There were thousands of Armenian words invented after the 1920s, just check books, dictionaries, and especially, the press.) It is a matter that goes beyond this discussion, because Wikipedia should reflect the fact that Armenians have had a generally used spelling -- with changes over time within the logical parameters of linguistic evolution -- for more than 1600 years, and a deviation from its standards that happened in 1922 for political reasons covered under a veneer of linguistics. Therefore, words quoted in languages other than Armenian should be in Classical Armenian -- as it happens in other languages of Wikipedia, where the word "genocide" is spelled «ցեղասպանութիւն» -- and, as a second option if you want, in Soviet Armenian orthography. At least, we would show some respect for ourselves and our own literary legacy. (Don't forget that "Western Armenian" orthography was also the spelling of Khachatur Abovian, Hovhannes Tumanian, Vahan Terian, or the younger Yeghishe Charents.)

If you want to see a source where the Armenian Apostolic Church (i.e. Holy Echmiadzin) uses the classical spelling of "genocide," that's your call. Unfortunately, I don't have sources at hand to show them to you. Gevorg V, Khoren I, Gevorg VI, Vazgen I, and Karekin I wrote their public and private correspondence in Eastern Armenian to the Diaspora in classical spelling. (How come, if classical spelling only belongs to "Western Armenian"?) Open the books with their published documents and see by yourself.

Thank you for your indication about Google, which I didn't know. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of my view: Google results are irrelevant for any purpose, and I gave you an example from this same entry; if you don't have it at hand, look in the archives of this section under 2012. (Imagine any denier who would make a similar claim to "ground" his/her farfetched arguments.)

Armen Ohanian (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Armen Ohanian jan, the fact that you dismiss the Google search only speaks against you. The classical orthography is still in minority no matter what you or anybody tries to claim. It is used in the Republic of Armenia (by its government, virtually the entire population, in the education system, judicial system, the Genocide Museum-Institute,[7] a major organization, perhaps the largest in Armenia, researching the genocide, etc.) and also used in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and by Armenians in Georgia and Russia and by other Hayastantsi immigrants elsewhere. There's no doubt people who use the reformed orthography daily exceed the number of daily users of the classical orthography. And the only reason I provided the results of the Google search is to show the fact that the reformed orthography use far exceeds the classical orthography use. There's something called WP:COMMONNAME that goes for article titles. It can easily be applied to this case too. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I dismissed it with the argument you have shamefully resuscitated in the first paragraph of the entry. ("Shamefully," because the article you quote DOES NOT SAY that «Մեծ Եղեռն» means "Great Calamity," but was part of a series of thoroughly researched articles proving that «Մեծ Եղեռն» means "Great Crime," AGAINST the illiterate Armenians who believe in the legend of "Great Calamity," together with Turks and other non-Armenians. If you are bent to give fodder to deniers, go ahead.) Someone else argued two years ago that Մեծ Եղեռն also means "Great Calamity" without a shred of proof -- as you have misleadingly done, because --, only with the argument that a Google search yields more "Great Calamity" than "Great Crime." (If such a search yielded more hits denying than affirming the Armenian Genocide, then a denier could argue that we should delete this entire article or affirm denialist viewpoints. This is the risk that your misguided argument is creating, unfortunately, even if probably you will not see it.)

The fact that people utilize daily an orthography which was adopted unanimously by the vote of (at most) 10 people in a closed room and then announced by decree in 1922, and then reformed by another decree without even such a vote in 1940, means nothing. If the government of the Republic of Armenia has been unable to do as much as its Eastern neighbor, which CHANGED AN ALPHABET, not ten or twenty spelling rules, that only speaks of our lack of self-respect.

Your "something called common name" is irrelevant here. The common name is the same word «ցեղասպանութիւն», which happened to be invented by those whose number does not "exceed" the number, while the "exceeding" ones -- who started to use it twenty years later -- have not yet learned how to make գենոցիդ go away even today (see for instance the article «Ռուսգազարդ + ՀՀԿ = գենոցիդ», «Հայկական ժամանակ», May 18, 2013). Armen Ohanian (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your irrationality amuses me. I've already given enough arguments that clearly explain how and why the reformed orthography should stay in the lead with the classical spelling as a footnote. You denounce everything that I say claiming they are "irrelevant", that is called WP:POV-pushing on Wikipedia. When and under what circumstances that orthography was changed has nothing to do with our discussion. Per WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]

This is where prevalence comes to play. I've already named where the reformed orthography is used and it is clearly most common spelling of the word "genocide" in Armenian. Whereas, I've not seen anything from you that shows that the classical spelling is more "prominent" or even close to being as prominent as the reformed spelling. Your constant references to the "Soviet-pushed" reform are not in any way relevant here. We're not here to discuss the reform, but which spelling is more significant and more "prominent". This is one of the main principles of Wikipedia. If you chose to ignore this, then I will not continue this discussion.

And what does գենոցիդ has to do with anything? Despite you claim, it is in nowhere close to being a common word (only 24,400 results and mostly blogs and such sites). Therefore, it is not prominent. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't studied the entire regulation of Wikipedia as you seem to have done, but I'll take the "in proportion to the prominence" argument to go back to the beginning of this thread -- since you pushed the spelling argument as your only argument and I am the "irrational" one here -- and remind you that the word ցեղասպանութիւն was used for the first time in 1933 and for the first time with the meaning of "genocide" in 1945, and that ցեղասպանություն started to timidly appear in the 1960s, coexisting with գենոցիդ until this day. (I explained to you why there's no question of "common name" here and your only response is that I denounce everything as "irrelevant." The best defense is offense, they say.) This is what is prominent: the word took its current meaning in classical spelling in 1945 and not in Soviet Armenian spelling, where it appeared around 20 years later. By the way, Google doesn't represent the entire universe of anything, there's plenty of stuff in Armenian and in many other languages that it's still out of Google or doesn't show up in Google because they're books and journals in PDF, etc. For that reason, I'd suggest you to leave your "search" button for better use and start to read books/journals in paper or go and find those PDF files (you will find գենոցիդ there, not only in blogs). In conclusion, since I'm the "irrational" here (but not the one who puts the traditional spelling in footnotes, as if Google hits were the only criteria to define anything; go and Google "round earth" and "flat earth" and see which one is more "prominent"), I'd suggest to use the same criteria I have seen in some articles of Wikipedia: to mention TAO ցեղասպանութիւն and RAO ցեղասպանություն, and put this discussion to rest. Armen Ohanian (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal reactions to the preceding discussion

The above is reason enough why this article is both a joke and a disgrace ((Personal attack removed)), and has been edit warring his pov opinion unchecked on this page for far too long). Is it going to remain a joke and a disgrace into the 100th anniversary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.208.106 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Etienne Dolet: I have no idea why your 'blunt' comment about the general quality of the article is addressed to me. Our engagement up to now has been about the "great calamity" issue. If you want to change the subject and express complaints about the general deficiencies of the second part of the article then don't single me out for no reason. Do what is normal: begin a new discussion under new heading. Diranakir (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Attention to WP administrators who may be reviewing this page: Please note the tone and calibre of the last two comments addressed to me by Etienne Dolet. They are a provocative breach of the fundamental guidelines established for Talk pages, especially in view of the fact that they have nothing to do with the section heading and that Dolet shows no sign that he cares whether his comments are relevant to the discussion or not.

Diranakir (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a wikipedia editor to use a large number of recently written articles by the same person to support what looks like an on-going personal agenda? Especially since some of those articles seem to have been written after this discussion about "Great Crime" translation began on Wikipedia (That is why I think it important to know whether the author of the cited articles and Diranakir might be the same person, and for that reason I can't see how it is a personal insult to do it. Are articles being written in other sources as direct responses to problems the author has had in getting his pov placed into this wikipedia article?). Why is Diranakir so against any compromise, such as placing the "great calamity" translation, which is supported by sources, into the article? EtienneDolet is right - the Armenian Genocide wikipedia article is in such a problematic state that to continually and exclusively dwell on this one tiny issue shows a complete lack of proportion by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.66 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The personal attacks on me with provocative suggestions that I am the same person whose work I cited have gone too far. A full and fair discussion was held to arrive at the definition of Medz Yeghern presently reflected in the lead paragraph of the article. All sides made compromises. It is unfortunate that reckless claims of a personal nature have now intruded this page to obscure the productive discussion held. Diranakir (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel my question amounted to a personal attack then I do apologise - it was not meant to be seen like that. I felt it was an acceptable question, but because you clearly think it is not, I withdraw it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Diranakir - since both myself and EtienneDolet have moved such of our comments that are relevant to content discussion out of this section, and that I have withdrawn my question, would you agree that it is OK to now delete this section from the talk page? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Etienne Dolet, concerning your edit at 21:56 on Mar. 31, let me first reproduce the 3 comments you addressed to me: 1) Honestly Diranakir...to put it bluntly: this article has a lot more problems than this great calamity and great crime stuff that is being debated here. The entire second half of the article is highly unorganized and is no where near a smooth read. It's disappointing to say the least... Étienne Dolet ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

2) I'm not singling you out for no reason and please refrain from WP:BADFAITH assumptions towards your fellow Wikipedia editors. I'm just saying that I think there's a lot more things that I (We) need to work on than coming to terms with this petty debate especially when I have done more than enough to provide a solution by providing a suitable proposal which has been accepted by all parties involved with the discussion. I don't get what is there more to argue about here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

3) Well, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My comment was clearly a summation of the debate above. If you hadn't noticed, the article is now rid of the very issues you deemed problematic with one swift edit. Even after the removal of the issue you found so problematic, you still tried to engage with user Yerevantsi ([10]). That is why I said that at this point, there's much more problems with this article than the one we have already solved. When taking that into consideration, my comment was relevant in that regard.Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain why I put your comments under a separate heading. There is nothing in them that extends or develops the discussion under "Great Calamity". Quite the contrary, you dismiss that discussion as "this great calamity and great crime stuff" and "this petty debate" to then direct my attention to portions of the article that you think are more problematic and the solution to which you think my focus on "Great Calamity" is an obstacle. None of this is in any sense a "summation of the debate above" as you say in quote 3). A disparaging comment is not a summation. You should look the word summation up in the dictionary before you use it if you want to be "clear". If you had simply used the "Heading" feature to discuss and rally support for the changes you thought necessary in the second part of the article, all these personal and subjective phrases would have been unnecessary. Therefore I feel this section and its heading are well-founded and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. I am disengaging from this section due to the reasons I have aforementioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Great Calamity"

Yerevantsi, you say, "Great Calamity is used by a number of sources". No doubt, but I must remind you that there is no basis in the modern Armenian language (specifying the period from 1915 until the present) for translating yeghern as calamity. Because a number of individuals mistakenly translate it that way does not make it correct. Zero times 10 is zero. Footnote number 9 defining the term yeghern says it all: H. H. Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian (Yeran Press, Boston, 1920), "Crime" defined as Եղեռն (Yeghern), p. 350, and M. Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English (Atlas Press, Beirut, 1970), Եղեռն (yeghern) defined as "crime", p. 312. End of story. If you don't agree, please state your reasons. Diranakir (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't respond now. Perhaps, will be able to tomorrow. I also need to do some research. I'm removing "Great Calamity" for now to avoid any edit-warring. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the good faith efforts that you guys are doing here to help improve the first sentence. Diranakir is right when he says that the term Yeghern now signifies "Crime" in modern Armenian terminology. Adjarian even makes note of this in his dictionary. However, it also appears to be the case that the "calamity" connotation can be very much applied to the word Yeghern since that was commonly used to signify it as such before its change of meaning. So, in order for us to ascribe to Wikipedia rules that considers old terms/names or definitions as valid alternative names, I believe the word calamity should be used as a note within the article in the least. I'm not too fond of clogging up the first sentence of one of the most important Armenian articles in Wikipedia. I'd also suggest to remove all of this terminology stuff to the "Defining genocide" section of the article. That way all viewpoints and terms can be expressed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, I appreciate your removal of "Great Calamity". It eliminates a serious impediment to a civil and constructive discussion of the fundamental issues at this sensitive time of the year. I hope it does not reappear so that our focus can remain clear.

Étienne Dolet, "calamity" is certainly a word that can be applied to the Armenian Genocide and there are no doubt dozens of places in the article where it could meaningfully be used, but specifically linking it to the word "yeghern" is not valid. While you commendably recognize the distinction Adjarian makes, your subsequent comments show that you do not take it seriously and think that somehow it can be ignored. We are here talking about modern Armenian. One can't have it both ways. Diranakir (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet: Adjarian says in his 7-volume etymological dictionary that the word "yeghern" meant "calamity, evil" in Classical Armenian and it means "crime" in the "new literary [language]." This is a clear, no nonsense indication that "yeghern" means "crime" in Modern Armenian. (If you think that it changed its meaning because of the genocide, the burden of the proof is on you. Adjarian does not imply that; Modern Armenian existed long before 1915.) Malkhasian in his comprehensive, 4-volume dictionary of the Armenian language puts a sign he uses for "old word or meaning" before the meaning "calamity, evil" of "yeghern." The Wikipedia rule that "considers old terms/names or definitions as valid alternative names" would be worth of consideration if "Medz Yeghern" had meant "Great Calamity" after 1915 and changed its basic meaning to "Great Crime" later, which it did not. (Instead, "yeghern" has evolved from "crime" to "massacre" to "genocide", thus "Medz Yeghern" = Great Crime, Great Massacre, Great Genocide. Perhaps you should consider using the rule to include these documented meanings.) Let me remind you that the users of the Armenian language had no need to change "calamity" to "crime" in the twentieth century; they had a word meaning "calamity/catastrophe/disaster" from at least the fifth century to March 24, 2014, "aghed," which has been also used to name the event of 1915. Armen Ohanian (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you both. Mets Yeghern undeniably means Great Crime. Genocide itself is a modern term and Mets Yeghern is its modern rendition so to say in Armenian. However, as you guys both mentioned, there is a distinction to be made from its classical meaning to avoid further confusion on behalf of the reader. So I think we should remove "Great Calamity" from the lead and instead place it somehow in the "Defining Genocide" section to avoid any further complication. We should also outline a little bit about the history of the word and when or why its meaning changed from "Calamity" to "Crime". Is this proposal okay for you guys? I think everyone here will get a bit of what they want... Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, I am here speaking only for myself. "Great Calamity" has been removed from the lead paragraph because it is indefensible and invalid. Therefore it makes little sense to place it somewhere else in the article in the expectation that it will there acquire the legitimacy as a proper noun (with capital letters) which it lacked in the lead paragraph. Of course, as I said earlier, "calamity" as an individual word or concept could probably be used at many points in the article.

Concerning your proposal to explain the evolution of the meaning of the word yeghern, that is completely unnecessary once we have recognized and properly employed its modern meaning. Indeed, it would probably be a confusing distraction from the article for most readers. Diranakir (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diranakir...personally, I think it would best to describe the meaning in a form of a clarification in "Defining Genocide" section of the article. As of now, that section shows how numerous international organizations and countries define genocide. Quite surprisingly, the section lacks information on how Armenians have defined it. Therefore, I think it will be even more confusing if we don't mention its classical meaning at all. I think it is our obligation as Wikipedia editors to made the clarifications needed for a more comprehensive understanding. Therefore, I think just a mere mention that its classical meaning has changed from "calamity" to "crime" can be good idea here. It will make things more clear for the reader. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, you or others are free to add whatever material you think appropriate to the article. I will reserve judgment on the anticipated benefits to the reader you envision until I have seen what is said and how well written it is. My main concern is that in your previous comment you talked about taking "Great Calamity", as such, from the lead paragraph and placing it somehow in the "Defining Genocide" section, whereas in your latest comment you talk only about explaining the evolution of meaning from "calamity" to "crime". I have to ask which proposal you are actually advancing. If it is the former, then I object on the grounds that "Great Calamity" is not a valid term. If the latter, then I am more favorable but would have to see the final form before passing judgment on it. Diranakir (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well my first proposal wasn't even something I pondered too much of myself. It was more of an attempt to point out that that the Defining Genocide section can be an appropriate avenue to place what is being debated here. So please, disregard that for now. I think we're okay with my second proposal. We'll have to work on the wording here. @Yerevantsi: Are you okay with my second proposal? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, historian Vartan Matiossian has done a thourough research on this issue and has concluded that:

“ In our previous article, we established that “Medz Yeghern” literally meant “Great Crime” for the survivors of the genocide. It becomes clear that the phrase cannot be arbitrarily translated to a completely different semantic field like “calamity,” even if the meaning of the word had fundamentally changed later at some point in the past hundred years.[8] ”

I strongly suggest we include his conclusion in this article so that people who have came across "calamity" know that it isn't the correct translation, despite being commonly presented, even in documents like George Bush's 2003 message[9]. Also, there is no need to cite primary sources as done now. WP:PRIMARY clearly states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Therefore, I'm replacing the two primary sources (two dictionaries that confirm that yeghern is crime) with Matiossian's article, which is a very good secondary source.
@Étienne Dolet: I don't mind. But I'm certain that "Great Calamity" should be mentioned in the article and explaining that it is not the correct translation, but rather an alternative translation or unknown origin (or is it known? Matiossian seems to talk about its origin, I'll have to take closer look) that has been used in several places. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

An important note to Yerevantsi & Étienne Dolet: dictionaries are secondary sources, and that applies to the two dictionaries cited in note 9. There is no need to remove that note and it is inadvisable to do so. There is nothing wrong with having two notes. A note referring to Dr. Matiossian's article can simply be added after note 9. In this connection it is useful to point out that the two articles from Dr. Matiossian's work that Yerevantsi has so far referred to are only two parts of an 11 part series which, taken as a whole, is a categorical refutation of "Great Calamity" as a valid translation of Medz Yeghern. That work offers all the notes you would want to enrich the new material in the "Defining Genocide" section and you would do well to draw on it. Diranakir (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dictionaries are secondary sources, but in this case they serve as primary sources. What I mean is that there are tens or even hundreds of Armenian dictionaries that define yeghern as crime. Why add just this two? Why not add Adjarian or some other dictionaries? Matiossian's article alone gives several examples and it is a conclusion of a professional who clearly confirms that yeghern is widely defined as crime, while citing two dictionaries does not serve this purpose. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, clarification please. How do hundreds of Armenian dictionaries defining yeghern as crime make the two dictionaries cited in note 9 primary, just those two dictionaries out of all those hundreds? You really need to explain how that works. Note 9 was placed there specifically because you, until just yesterday or so, have vigorously insisted that "Great Calamity" was a valid translation of Medz Yeghern. And it is there because a couple of years ago, a couple of other editors even insisted that translating Medz Yeghern as Great Crime was completely false and a travesty. That's why the note is there and needs to remain there. You can always add more if you wish, but I don't see the point if we are agreed that the meaning is Great Crime. Are we agreed on that point or did you change your mind overnight? Diranakir (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi: you have still not answered my question. I dispute your calling the two dictionary references in [former] note 9 "primary sources". What is your reasoning? It is very important to get that clear for the record.

Be that as it may, you have found an excellent replacement for those references by citing the seventh article in Dr. Matiossian's eleven part series refuting the notion that "Great Calamity" is in any way a valid translation of Medz Yeghern. For the benefit of this discussion, the readers and the main article, here are the links to Dr. Matiossian's entire series:

1. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/10/25/the-birth-of-great-calamity-how-medz-yeghern-was-introduced-onto-the-world-stage/comment-page-1/#comment-72225

2. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/11/07/the-turkish-made-great-calamity-how-medz-yeghern-became-buyuk-felaket/comment-page-1/#comment-73568

3. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/11/27/when-dictionaries-are-left-unopened-how-medz-yeghern-turned-into-terminology-of-denial/

4. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/12/12/the-evil-that-we-do-not-know-medz-yeghern-and-the-old-language/

5. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/12/20/the-great-crime-that-was-brewing-the-meaning-of-medz-yeghern-before-1915/#comments

6. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/04/the-great-calamity-hoax-what-medz-yeghern-actually-meant-for-the-survivors/#comments

7. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/01/12/the-self-delusion-of-great-calamity-what-medz-yeghern-actually-means-today/

8. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/05/15/the-exact-translation-how-medz-yeghern-means-genocide/

9. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/08/02/what-our-words-mean-towards-the-vindication-of-medz-yeghern/

10. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/09/27/word-atrocities-of-little-phrases-and-great-crimes/#comments

11. http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/12/16/what-i-choose-it-to-mean-on-yeghern-as-the-armenian-translation-of-genocide/ Diranakir (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly Diranakir...to put it bluntly: this article has a lot more problems than this great calamity and great crime stuff that is being debated here. The entire second half of the article is highly unorganized and is no where near a smooth read. It's disappointing to say the least... Étienne Dolet ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not singling you out for no reason and please refrain from WP:BADFAITH assumptions towards your fellow Wikipedia editors. I'm just saying that I think there's a lot more things that I (We) need to work on than coming to terms with this petty debate especially when I have done more than enough to provide a solution by providing a suitable proposal which has been accepted by all parties involved with the discussion. I don't get what is there more to argue about here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My comment was clearly a summation of the debate above. If you hadn't noticed, the article is now rid of the very issues you deemed problematic with one swift edit. Even after the removal of the issue you found so problematic, you still tried to engage with user Yerevantsi ([10]). That is why I said that at this point, there's much more problems with this article than the one we have already solved. When taking that into consideration, my comment was relevant in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are, if there are good sources that use "Great Crime" or similar then it should be there, and if there are good sources that use the phrase "Great Calamity" or similar, then that should be there too. Really, the question about what is the most exact or accurate translation of Medz Yeghern is not an issue that needs to be asked here at all! All we should be concerned with is what other sources have used, what the credibility of those sources is, and how content from those sources should be used inside this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.66 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Above 2 comments are by me. Decided to make an account. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The 11 articles Diranakir has cited are all arguing against the phrase "Great calamity" (or similar). And are part of a series, not one-offs. So that means there must be people and sources out there that use the phrase "Great calamity" (or similar) - since it would be silly to write that many articles against something if that something did not exist in a substantial form! It is not for anyone here to arrive at the definition of Medz Yeghern - the article should use the definitions that the sources have arrived at. Does anyone object to that reasoning? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Any purported form of reasoning that leads to the mistranslation of the principal Armenian name for the Armenian Genocide is totally objectionable. Diranakir (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In other words, "Great Calamity" exists as a translation of Medz Yeghern - but you don't want it in this Wikipedia article because you don't like it. Does that sum up your "argument"? I admit to not having read through all your posts in this lengthy discussion, but if that summing up does correctly characterize is the extent of your argument against "Great Calamity" appearing then I am astonished that this discussion has gone on for so long and that "Great Calamity" is not in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Great Calamity" is not among "the definitions that the sources have arrived at." In case you're not aware of it, the Armenian word for "calamity/catastrophe/disaster" is "aghed." According to the abovementioned articles, a number of people have simply written "Medz Yeghern (Great Calamity)"; the author has probed the grounds for such a translation and showed that there are no grounds. (As an analogy, if various people started to write "Shoah (Tragedy)" just from the top of their head, I don't think that the Wikipedia article about the Holocaust would include the unsupported translation "Tragedy" just because any number of people used it.) Armen Ohanian (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Great Calamity" is no translation of "Medz Yeghern". A quotation from Étienne Dolet [17:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)] : "Okay, I agree with you both. Mets Yeghern undeniably means Great Crime." A quotation from Yerevantsi [02:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]: ' Fortunately for us, historian Vartan Matiossian has done a thourough research on this issue and has concluded that: “In our previous article, we established that 'Medz Yeghern' literally meant “Great Crime” for the survivors of the genocide. It becomes clear that the phrase cannot be arbitrarily translated to a completely different semantic field like 'calamity,' even if the meaning of the word had fundamentally changed later at some point in the past hundred years.[8]” I strongly suggest we include his conclusion in this article so that people who have came across "calamity" know that it isn't the correct translation, despite being commonly presented, Diranakir (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Matiossian has gone to the bother of writing article after article aggressively asserting that the only transaltion of "Mets Yeghern" can be "Great Crime" because there is an existing controversy about that translation and because there are alternative translations being used. As you have just admitted, alternatives like "Great Calamity" or "Great Catastrophy" are "commonly presented". So they also need to be in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "commonly presented" was not mine but Yerevantsi's. There should have been a closing quotation mark at the end, after "presented". In other words, after having very favorably cited Dr. Matiossian's work, Yerevantsi says: "I strongly suggest we include his conclusion in this article so that people who have came across "calamity" know that it isn't the correct translation, despite being commonly presented". Diranakir (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an existing controversy about that translation and there are alternative translations being used. These things are unarguable, even though you and Matiossian don't like it that there are alternative translations. And assertions about what you like or don't like is not a valid reason to exclude legitimate content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I already gave you the analogy of the "alternative" translation "tragedy" for "Shoah." Or, since you didn't answer, I can suggest you an even better analogy: "There is an existing controversy about the use of gas chambers in the Holocaust, and there are alternative views being used. These things are unarguable, even though you don't like it that there are such alternative views. And assertions about what I like or don't like is not a valid reason to exclude legitimate content." Go and sell this argument to the "Talk" page of the Holocaust entry, since the gas chamber deniers have bothered to put together a concoction of "proofs." Once you succeed, please find someone who has made some kind of argument, with proofs and not trolling, for the validity of "Great Calamity," and you will be entitled to talk about it. Armen Ohanian (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC) When I said "someone who has made some kind of argument," I meant a scholar who knows Armenian and has published on the topic, not any hack of any nationality who has just copied and pasted the translation to put it between brackets. Phony equivalences under the cover of objectivity do not belong here; there is an entry called "Armenian Genocide denial" that deals with them. Armen Ohanian (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I was considering letting this go, being busy with plenty of other things and knowing that there is probably going to be a lot of game playing in this article that only an editor with a lot of experience is able to work through. However, in the light of the above comment I see that I probably should not. And Armen Ohanian, if I see the slightest reoccurrence of the above insult I will raise the matter with administrators. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

When I said "not any hack of any nationality who has just copied and pasted the translation to put it between brackets," I didn't mean to insult anyone. I only meant that a scholarly opinion is required and not, for instance, a quotation from any given columnist of any nationality (including Armenian) who may have written "Medz Yeghern (Great Calamity)" in an article. The latter is not a scholarly opinion, but a "copy and paste" of the translation. Armen Ohanian (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

‎Lord of Rivendell's edits on Turkey article

Lord of Rivendell's edit on the Turkey article depreciates the number of those killed during the Armenian Genocide to 600,000. In order for this to be justified, I invite Lord of Rivendall to present his argument in this talk page. In order for the changes to the made on Turkey article, we must first change the consensus in this article, or else the conclusions to these two figures will not be in compliance. 1,500,000 is the most widely accepted figure when talking about Armenian Genocide. The consensus drawn from this article has been to include that figure. I ask of Lord of Rivendell as to how can 600,000 be the most widely acknowledged figure? What makes the user believe that 1,500,000 is not an accurate assessment of those that have died? Why has the user chosen 600,000, the lowest estimate of the number of deaths ever to be made? I have asked the user to refer to the talk page several times, but after refusing to do so, I was compelled to bring the case here to get not only the mentioned user involved, but the Wikipedia community as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Lord of Rivendell's version of the facts, let's look at a quotation from his leading source {Brittanica online): "the subjectivity of some sources has caused greater value to be placed on the reports of European observers". Quite naturally, Rivendell takes at face value this crude expression of Western European chauvinism (cast in a dodgy passive voice) and its implication 1) that Armenian scholars cannot be trusted to arrive at facts on their own and 2) that British sources are blessedly free of subjectivity. Let us also consider that the "Blue Book" was 1) published while the Genocide was still in full swing and not nearly over and that 2) Talat's "Black Book" reported almost a million victims at about the same point, a figure the bloodthirsty leader would have regarded as minimal to his purposes. Rivendell should also take into account the fact that the Ottoman government had every reason to minimize the number of Armenians living under its rule, given its deadly intentions in relation to them and the bothersome concerns that various European governments had expressed about their treatment. As a consequence, the Ottoman government used the device of not counting Armenian Catholics and Protestants as Armenians, considering only that Armenians belonging to the national church (Apostolic/Gregorian) were genuine Armenians. Diranakir (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is Lord of Rivendell after all. Last time he got blocked because he called me Kurd and made his/her point to all of us. He is a nationalist indeed. So dont think that he will just accept the 1,5 million fact. He will call you 'Armenian' and probably insult you for this issue. If something occurs, I reccomned to you guys, fill up a section against him in that incidents page. Last time admins said he would get blocked for good. KazekageTR (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if he continues, that may be an avenue to take to solve this problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to carry through on that if he continues edit warring. I'm the one who gave him the final warning. Let me know if it happens. Canterbury Tail talk 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem any longer unfortunately. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hahah Étienne Dolet i told u that he would insult by calling u an Armenian. He is a typical Turkish fascist. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 05:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey lets not get into personal attacks and classification of editors here, consider that a warning. Don't make comments about other users like that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Who ever said being Armenian is an "insult"? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

in Turkey, It is an insult to classify someone with his/her ethnic background mate. LoR calls you Armenian in that way . Just like he called me earlier.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Erdoğan statement update

Pretty notable [11]Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

100th anniversary next year

Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the state of the genocide It would be nice to see the article improved to FA status and to have it as the TFA on that day. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 That has always been my dream. I managed to get the Armenian Genocide map nominated to FP level and I have it scheduled to be displayed on the front page on April 24, 2015 (see here: Template:POTD/2015-04-24). When it comes to this article, I have observed that it has too many formatting inconsistencies with the references and all. There's also way too many references in the lead. Some sections are just way too short others way too long. There's a lot of information that isn't significant enough to be there. But I am willing to nominate it for GA which is a good start. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Choice of pictures

There are hundreds upon hundreds of suitable pictures regarding the Armenian Genocide, there is no reason to choose the one whose factual accuracy is questionable.--Kathovo talk 08:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument here isn't whether the photograph is forged or not. We'll let the academics handle that. My concern is whether the photograph is significant and notable enough to be included in the article. Believe me, I don't mind if it's placed in the article or not. But being considered as one of 20 Photographs That Will Leave You Speechless, I think it's pretty notable especially when it pertains to the article. As for the discussion on the talk page of the photo, the AfD was done by a highly disruptive editor who has been indefinitely topic banned under AA2 and ARBMAC topics. I can hardly believe that his attempt at deletion was sincere. Besides, you can't delete photographs just because you think it's forged. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That photo is a well-known fake. Or rather, it began as a simulation of an event, created for fund-raising purposes in the immediate aftermath of the Genocide, and then, in later decades, either its origin was forgotten (or was deliberately overlooked) and it became used as an actual representation of a real event. We are not talking about deleting the photo, just removing it from the article. Having it used in the article in the way it was being used is not going to help that aspiration to GA status you talked about earlier. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind removing it for now then. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)