Talk:Hamidian massacres

Armenia Start‑class

Hamidian massacres is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is no copyright violation, this entry has been taken off of the Armenian genocide entry because it was unrelated.Fadix 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Coolcat has edited the page to add factual accuracy dispute comment onto this page without giving a comment as to why. Nor any effort to correct or verify the articly seems to have been taken. There are none of his/her opinions on the talk page neither. Can he post a comment related to this situation. Otherwise if no evidence can be given to the validity of factual accuracy dispute then it should be removed. 203.88.239.105 08:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however I am very busy with Armenian Genocide. This article will be discussed after Armenian Genocide is resolved, this material was moved form Armenian Genocide. One problem at a time. -- Cat ^chi? 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given. A "I will do it later" does not suffice. Particularly as the dispute related to the Armenian Genocide will likely and has taken a long time. Your work with that page does not have an end time in sight Meok 12:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article should be cleaned up - it is very hard to read (and I suspect it was originally simply copied from some book). There may be map, information about historical context, sources in its own section and the article needs to be restructured. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article was cut from the Armenian genocide entry to have its own entry. Right now, it is kind of hard to work on such articles, when there are ultra nationalists like Coolcat interrupting any progresses. Fadix 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the article itself is also very nationalist and biased. It has wording like "some diplomats..." or "some Turkish writers...". It provides numbers such as "tens of thousands". No real names, no concrete numbers... Also a lot of unproven ideas presented as serious information, such as "the existence of those revolutionaries was just a pretext for the massacres". Anyone objecting the accuracy dispute should first prove "why not?"

By the way, does any of you guys have a list with dates and locations of Armenian insurgencies within the empire? --Gokhan 15:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to update the article to Wikipedia style, instead of putting/removing {{...}} on it.

Article should say where, when, who (and explain who Abdul Hamid was), why it is named so, timeline, sources, disputes and links to related events, all in this order Pavel Vozenilek 16:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - this section - much like the Armenian genocide section proper needs much work. Context and explanation are lacking and the explanation (and linkages) are insufficient.--THOTH 00:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reference sources in the article. There are some numbers about death toll but neutral sources are necessary to believe that they are not fictional.--Hattusili 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the 6th paragraph in the "Background" portion of the page: The Turkish massacres of Armenians in 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1909 were still fresh in their minds. The chronology is surely wrong. I don't dispute that these dates are significant, but they don't belong under this heading. Joeykelly (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics aside, this article needs a serious cleanup to bring it to Wikipedia's standards. Somebody please put this into an encyclopedic format and cite reliable sources of some description. Augustgrahl

I've cleaned up the page a bit and added at least one source. The article still needs a lot of work, though. If anybody could get reliable sources from books that'd be great. Augustgrahl

This is one, gigantic, Armenian-sided story. Nowhere else in the world do people believe that these massacres occured, other than in Armenia itself. Why, just a few months ago (maybe a year) an American historian went to Turkey and gave public speaches about how this was a time of war and that many things were exaggerated, especially for the side of the Armenians. This was a sort of push against the Ottomans so that the Christian countries would fight with the Ottomans. Besides, I hardly see any references to any of the facts in this section.

Perhaps this historian was somebody like Justin McCarthy, who doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of American scholars? There are referenced sources in the article that are definitely not entirely Armenian, notably the Constitutional Rights Foundation and the United Human Rights Council. -- Augustgrahl 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere else in the world? Could you maybe explain, as an example, France's current position if it is only in Armenia this is beleived? Maybe you coudl explain why virtually every European country accepts it? 137.205.236.43 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we call it as "lobby"

I put a POV notice, considering curent events I think this will probaly be vandleised again - has already been. Me lkjhgfdsa 14:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous Turk, it's the other way round: no one other than Turkish people deny the massacres that your people committed against the Armenians. 201.6.69.105 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not feed the trolls"

English man said 200.000 deadh (wooooww he made up too much.. Bad English guy!) German man said 89.000 dead willam said 80.000 dead (woow he made up the smallest one.. Good guy :) ) What? you don't know the history? what is the numbers? You got the number from news? Wow, they did a rebellation without gun, And we ottomans killed 200.000 people.. Why only 200.000 , why they didn't kill them all at that time (at that time ottoman was armed). 1.5 million for example :). Yeah article was really funny. Why don't you give us more details. If their is no detail in history, then history is not the history.. How many child killed, How many woman killed. Were Armenians armed?, In which places they killed exactly, who was the leader of rebellation, exact number death according to each month (not for year). What was the reason? You guyss make me laugh really :))).. Who wrote this? 16 years boys?

I have removed my comment Vartanm 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah written by 16 years old boys :)))))). So it is not 1.5 million.. It is 1.7 million armeanian. Any more holocast or massacres? I will add thoholeass holocast to wikipedia. I will also add that English Sam William Marsall saw 400.000 people death. So the total will 2.2 million. Yeah and I will make the world to believe it. They will definitely belive because they hate Turks. Anyway we dont give any shits for that. Even Russian Archives supports us. Even you made up stories, history is history you can not change :))))))))))

yeah I am troll :)... Do you know why I like to write here? and why noone is able to reply me? .. because I am right. If you are right, noone can give you a reply.. Try to give me a reply.. By the way picture is good. But I really wonder how many woman died.. if these 200.000 dead people are all man, then it means 200.000 widowed woman.. woowww!!.. that is why I am asking.. then most of the widowed woman must have died also.. it means 300.000 causilities.. And no ottoman books, no ottoman news paper wrote this..... It is a shame!!!!!!!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.53.191 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying, what English man? he counted 400,000 thousand bodies? thats impossible, different parties have different opinions. Artaxiad 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone Narek. He just wants to piss people off. Vartanm 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am analyzing your stupid article.. When analyzing, this kind of stupid results comes out. I am sorry. There is no details in the article, that is why analyzing is difficult.. :))))) .. whyyyy ???... My questions are reasonable!!!.. I am asking if ottoman killed the armenian childeren in this massacres ?? or Maybe ottoman made them devshirmeh :P.. These are reasonable questions.. I am writing a history here! :)

OK It is enough pissing people off, I checked little bit, here is some resources :

Rebuttal of Views Expressed by a Turkish "Turncoat" Professor From the speech: During the same interview, Berktay says “before 1915, were the 1880s and l890s. When during the 1890s, during the reign of Abdulhamid II, there were signs of a nationalist rebellion brewing, terrible Armenian massacres took place. Blood seeped in between the Armenians and the Ottoman Administration. Kurdish tribes and the Hamidiye regiments formed by Kurds were unleashed upon Armenians...” It also says: The famous historian Willam Langer in his monumental work The Diplomacy of Imperialism (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1968) supports our view on the basis of documents. On the other hand, Berktay, while asserting that Abdulhamid II has used ‘the Kurdish Hamidiye regiments to massacre the Armenians, forgets that there are no historical documents to support his allegation. Yes Willam's numbers are too much biased..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Onur prg (talk • contribs)

One of the sources mentioned in the article is the United Human Rights Council. Could someone please tell me what this organisation is all about and why it is considered to be a reliable source for this highly controversial issue? Because of its (deceptive?) name, I almost mistook it for an official institution of the UN (Cf. UNHRC). But after a look at their site, I saw that there is nothing "official" nor "academical" about it. The About us section gives not enough clarification about the body either. So, again: why is it mentioned as a reliable source? Siyah Kalem 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In "Through Armenia on Horseback" George Hepworth, a preeminent journalist who visited Armenia in 1896, writes about the disparity between the reality of the Massacre in Bitlis and the official document sent to the Porte, and which Turks use to support their rebellion thesis. The book is available on google book, and the chapter in question is "Hamidiehs and Massacres." Hepworth writes after retelling the Turkish version of events "....That is the account of the affair which was sent to Yildiz, and that story contains all that the sultan has any means of knowing about it. It is a most remarkable story, and the discrepancies are as thick as leaves in Valambrosa. On the face of it, it cannot be true, and before a jury it would hardly have any weight as evidence. It is extremely important, however, because it is probably a fair representation of the occurrences of the last few years. That it is a misrepresentation so much so that it can fairly be called fabrication, becomes clear when you look at it a second time... and yet it is from an official document which the future historian will read when he wishes to compile the facts concerning those massacres. pg. 239-241 I'd write the section myself but the site is protected. (E10ddie (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This event is currently listed on the above list... unfortunately there is a problem. The inclusion criteria for the list indicate that the word "massacre" has to be part of a common NAME for the event (as indicated through the use as such in multiple reliable sources). In other words, multilple reliable sources need to be cited that name the event the "Hamidian massacres" (or a close variant there of). If such sources are not added, we will have to remove the event from the list, and it would be nice if we could avoid that.

Please note that we are not looking for sources as to whether the events were or were not "massacres"... nor even sources that discribe the events as being massacres... the word must be used as part of a name for the event to be inlcuded.

Chances are, those who edit this page regularly will be familiar with the sources on it. Please help us out by providing us with sources that fit our inclusion criteria. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the first 50 pages of Peter Balakian's "Burning Tigris" descrives the event as the "Hamidian Massacres," and goes on to describe them. I think Melson's "Revolution and Genocide" does as well. E10ddie (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who read German: The most extensive discussion of the massacres of 1894-1896 is in: Jelle Verheij (1999) Die armenischen Massaker von 1894-1896. Anatomie und Hintergründe einer Krise, in: Kieser, Hans-Lukas (ed), Die armenische Frage und die Schweiz (1896-1923)/ La question arménienne et la Suisse (1896-1923) (Zürich, Chronos, 1999) pp.69-132. On p. 126 of this article there is a list of all the events with discussion of number of victims according to Armenian, Ottoman and European sources. Donald Bloxham, in his recent "The great game of genocide" (Oxford University Press, 2005) based his treatment of the 1894-1896 largely on the work of Verheij (pp.51-57) Jantr (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is biased and contains heavy Dashnak and diaspora POV, there is no opponent view(it is mentioned that there is a Turkish view, but it is not given in teh article and is discredited in absentia).88.248.113.212 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you sould look at the sources again. VartanM (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]