Jump to content

Talk:Armenian genocide

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


Infobox text in “Armenians in the Ottoman Empire” incorrect

There is a miscount in the Infobox to the right of the “Armenians in the Ottoman Empire” subtitle. Another of the editors’ absurdities. Listed are five vilayets but then the text says that they represented “the six most heavily Armenian-populated Ottoman vilayets”. Sivas, the sixth one, is missing, dearest editors. And one falsification of an RS text in ref. 4. Nowhere on p. 279 does Kévorkian (The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History) say that these vilayets were “the six most heavily Armenian-populated Ottoman vilayets”. This is what the author says on p. 279, ad verbum: “According to the figures presented in the previous chapter, of the 2,925 towns and villages of the empire in which Armenians lived, no fewer than 2,084 were located on the Armenian high plateau, properly speaking – that is, in the vilayets of Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Mamuret ul-Aziz, and Dyarbekir.” By the way, did I mention that Kévorkian uses “the Armenian high plateau” and not “Anatolia” in this particular clause? Cheers73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Good points. The caption now includes Sivas, and the text more closely matches Kevorkian's village-based analysis. There is still a problem, since Kevorkian doesn't use the "Six Villayets" concept explicitly on the page cited. Also, if we want to introduce the "Six Villayets", just doing so in this caption is odd. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
During the Congress of Berlin in 1878, these vilayets were referred to as Six Armenian Vilayets, not Six Vilayets.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
Yes, but the cluster is given so many names by the sources, and I'd prefer to use the title of the linked article. You might want to propose a move of the linked article if you think that "Six Armenian Vilayets" would be a better title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six Armenian Vilayets (or, more precisely, "the provinces inhabited by the Armenians") was the name originally figuring in the official documents of the 1878 Congress of Berlin. Turks, of course, labored to drop anything "Armenian" in their "best" traditions, and I'm sorry to say, the title of the linked article, Six Vilayets, follows this Turkish preference. Whereas one would think the title must have followed the original name version and not the Turkish distortion.73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
First of all, as we and you can clearly see, he is an Armenian, and probably a nationalist one. So we can understand why he used Armenian Highlands(or plateu) instead of Anatolia.
Vilayet-i Sitte(Six provinces) were the Vilayets that Armenians had intense percentage in the whole vilayet. They were not majority but they were like %20-35. asperagasmanchini (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“CUP regrouped as Turkish nationalists” is hypocrisy, the Turkish nationalists literally fought against the CUP…

Yeah, someone care to explain? Youprayteas talk/contribs 08:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote is not really true and the sources that say so are decades out of date. This was Zürcher's big contribution and now most historians changed their view (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Istanbul Government is the CUP… which was allied to the Entente… which was fighting Turkish nationalists… Youprayteas talk/contribs 19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. The CUP as an organization didn't outlast World War I, but most of the leading figures in the Turkish Nationalist movement were ex-CUP. If you doubt me, there are literally three sources cited in the article, I would recommend checking them out. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, Union and Progress Party leaders left the country because of execution risk(Malta Exiles). The opposition group, Freedom and Accord Party captured the goverment and allied with Sultan.
Later, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, Refet Pasha, Kazim Pasha, Nurettin Pasha(Sakalli), Mustafa Ismet(Inonu) etc. were all quitted from CUP. asperagasmanchini (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: new sources

  • Akçam, Taner (2023). "The Armenian Genocide: An Overview". The Cambridge World History of Genocide: Volume 3: Genocide in the Contemporary Era, 1914–2020. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–92. ISBN 978-1-108-76711-8.
  • Akçam, Taner (2024). "Top-Down and Local Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire: The Role of Security Concerns and a Century of "Accumulated Experience"". Journal of Genocide Research. 26 (2): 121–141. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2127488.

End date of 1917 instead of 1923

I strongly oppose the change of the date to 1917 as opposed to 1923. Genocide was not only committed by the CUP/Ottoman Empire, but also by TNC and Ataturk. The genocide continued in systematic massacres of Armenian (many of who returned from deportations), but also in economic and cultural erasure. The article discusses how the Genocide ‘ended 2000 years of Armenian residence to the region.’ If that is the case, you simply have to expand the date to 1923, because TNC/ Ataturk’s policy were the final nail in the coffin. From systematic massacres, such as the aftermath of the Battle of Maras; to seizure of most Armenian property, and the systematic destruction of Armenian heritage (Ani being one of several examples); it’s hard to justify their exclusion. Would like to hear the moderators argument, of keeping those events-which truly did end Armenian presence in the region-from inclusion in the genocide. Thank you. Nlblough (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it's possible to make the case either way, this is why I support removing the infobox. However, most sources end it at 1916, 1917, or 1918 so I don't support changing it. (t · c) buidhe 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A more nuanced version of the infobox, but less helpful to our readers, would go something like follows:
Location
Ottoman Empire (but also parts of Iran and arguably the Republic of Turkey)
Date
1915–1917 (some sources start at 1914 or earlier, and you can see 1916, 1918, 1923 or the present as end dates)
Target
Ottoman Armenians (but some would bundle in Assyrians and perhaps Greeks)
Attack type
Genocide, death march, Islamization
Deaths
600,000–1.5 million
Perpetrators
Committee of Union and Progress (but also random ottoman Muslims, Kurdish tribes, ottoman bureaucracy etc.) (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think so. Armenian state was the aggressor in Eastern Anatolia and responsible for many deaths just before Kazim Karabekir's troops' defences. During Turkish war of Independence the troops and irregulars fought. If we should extend it to 1923 then we should open a "Turkish genocide" page for the same years too. asperagasmanchini (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Taner Akçam isnt an objective source. He is anti-Turk and funding by EU. I'd suggest another sources, it can be from USA genocide researches. asperagasmanchini (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide&oldid=1283588272"