Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 23

A notice concerning these pictures
I have a notice concerning these pictures that are commonly used by the propagandists of the so-called "Armenian Genocide":
 * 1) "The picture of the mother and her child": the Library of Congress state on its website (see the link) that the: "Title and other information transcribed from unverified, old caption card data and item." This testifies that the description given to the picture is Not Reliable. There is no single evidence that the ethnicity of the pictured woman is Armenian. She could be Arab, Turk, or Armenian. However, given the notice that Armenian women don't wear "the Hijab" that this woman is wearing, the possibility of her being Arab or Turkish is higher.


 * 1) Concerning soldiers and bodies of Armenian militants 1904.jpg "this picture": These soldiers are definitely Russian (wearing the Russian uniform: light colored coat, belt on the waist, dark colored trousers, and most important of all, "caps" (hat) worn by the ranked officers at the left and right ends of the frame. The victims are definitely Muslim villagers (not Armenian).--95.141.20.198 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not for the editors here to make judgements on the veracity of the images they cite. All they can do is accurately cite what actually is recorded for these images. If you have a differing expert opinion, as you indeed seem to have for the second image, then I suggest you take it directly to the archive involved, which you should find recorded in the Commons description of the file. c1cada (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Armenians don't "the Hijab"" No, they don't. And she does neither. Stop with the nonsense. As for the soldiers, you can't verify this as you are just a random IP address with no credibility whatsoever. --92slim (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Earlier I've pointed out the obvious inaccuracy of many of the image captions and the completely unverified nature of many of the photographs used in this article, and how it opens the article up to ridicule and dismissal and provides an open door to "so called genocide" advocates like the above anon. But some editors just don't want to listen or understand. The first photo is probably a NER fundraising photo, probably not posed, but given a caption that better suited its function. The second photo is probably Russian soldiers who have arrived at a massacre site during their advance west. Its poor resolution suggests a newspaper as the source. De Nogales mentions passing similar scenes during his retreat in advance of those Russians - piles of bodies of murdered Armenians or Syrian Christians, stripped of all clothing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "completely unverified nature of many of the photographs used in this article" along with no reliable sources to back up your claims. Sorry, that's WP:OR unless backed by sources. I doubt you can find such sources anywhere. --92slim (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

German film from 2010
There is the very good german film from 2010 that should be mentioned under 'Portrayal in the media': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghet_%E2%80%93_Ein_V%C3%B6lkermord

WaldeBeck (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks WaldeBeck. Ill check it out. c1cada (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Haven't forgotten this, Waldebeck. However 'Portrayal in the media' seems to me to be a section about creative works of art, while your film is a documentary history. I managed to grab a copy that fell off the back of a passing Google van and I'll have a look at it, check out what sort of educational value it has and how best to link it into the graph. Give you a ping when I'm done. It already has an article I see. Thanks for mentioning it. Looks good and I look forward to watching it. c1cada (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hallo Clada, in my opinion the film itself will declare everything. And why do'nt you believe in its english wikipedia-page?

WaldeBeck (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just that it's a documentary, and those don't seem to be addressed in the article section. c1cada (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "historic homelands"
Presently the article contains two elementary error of fact when it says:


 * The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey

The first is that the Armenian Genocide was confined to its minority Armenian subjects. But that is not so because the post war massacres involved the Armenian (majority?) population in Eastern Armenia outside the control of the Ottoman Empire since 1878, and the second of course is that Eastern Armenia (i.e. the Caucasus region) does not lie within the present day Republic of Turkey, but outside it (for help with the terms "inside" and "outside", see the Jordan Curve Theorem: I can add an elegant little note about that should the management desire).

I'm not aware that consensus is needed to correct simple errors of fact, however the management insist. I suggest the copy is replaced with:


 * The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of the Armenian people within their historic homeland, the  western reaches of which lie within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey.

I frankly question what the purpose can be at this stage to introduce the Republic of Turkey. Why so?

The Ottoman Empire remained in place until the abolition of the sultanate 17 November 1922, so there is no need to introduce the Republic of Turkey regarding the post war massacres. An elementary error of fact in the section "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" should also be corrected: "Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence" should be replaced by "Mass killings continued during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of the Turkish War of Independence". This is by far the most serious error of fact in the article. I cannot imagine why the management persist in defending it.

I trust the management will find these three proposals of mine constructive. I am extremely busy in May and June and early July, but propose to return after that to help bring this article to Good Article status and trust we can meet on good terms then. c1cada (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That can't be done. Western Armenia is an irredentist claim, and as such wouldn't be neutral. --92slim (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh? Can't really follow that. I gather there's an 1992-1994 irredentism claim from Armenia but I can't see what that has to do with this. The most noticeable thing about this article is that it doesn't address the post war massacres referenced in the lede. But those massacres were committed in the Caucasus, not within the territory of the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Armenian people were not subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Are you saying there are no errors of fact here. How so? At least 60,000 people were massacred, possibly hundreds of thousands. It's worth getting it right I think, if only out of respect to the victims. c1cada (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Any other opinions? If it's just 92slim dissenting, we can take this to a Third opinion. The question we can ask is whether there are errors of fact as I describe and if so whether "Western Armenia" being an irredentist claim (it would help if this was clarified a bit as I really don't understand the issue) means that the article is bound not to correct the errors of fact in the way I indicate. c1cada (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The irredentist issue has nothing to do with the issue here. At that time there was a Western Armenia located in the Ottoman Empire and an Eastern Armenia located outside the Ottoman Empire (and present day Turkey). I propose to incorporate my edit in the article in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way later this evening if I see no dissent. c1cada (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather taken by the definition I found in the above section from The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia:


 * "The extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923 is called the Armenian Genocide."

That does deal with the issue I cited very well and of course the source is entirely impeccable. So I propose the following:


 * The Armenian Genocide ... was the extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923.

where the opening sentence thus gets an authoritative citation for both the nature of the Genocide and its dates, dealing once and for all with the issues debated here so frequently concerning the Genocide and its dates.

This Talk page is presently edited quite actively, so I suggest a three day period (72 hours) for achieving consensus here. I stress the need for a modification arises from the presently matter of fact incorrect definition, which describes the Genocide as the extermination of the Ottoman Empire's minority Armenian subjects within its borders.

Needless to say, if there are no dissenting voices here then we must assume consensus has been reached. c1cada (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording should include the fact that the Armenians were uprooted from their historical homelands. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify please? The existing edit doesn't make any mention of uprooting. The genocide (in a legal sense) of the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire springs especially from "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" i.e. the death marches, but these were not a feature of the extermination in the surrounding regions. Are you saying that National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia is dissimulating here? c1cada (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Western Armenia is not an irredentist term, it defines specific regions of Armenia during specific periods of its history and is used by legitimate historians. "Historic homelands" IS an irredentist term, as well as being vague, emotive, and pov. You will not find it used by legitimate historians. Armenian irredentist propaganda (and also Turkish propaganda, but for different reasons) wants to represent all the victims of the Genocide as living in their "historic homelands", i.e. in territory that comprised historical Armenia. However, the majority of the victims did not live in historical Armenia. The Armenian Genocide was not limited to the territory comprising "Western Armenia", and it was not limited to the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire exterminated Armenians wherever it found them - when its forces entered Persia, it continued the genocide there, when its forces entered the territory of the Russian empire it continued the genocide there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for that. I think that's quite correct and that we can ignore the issue of irredentism and "historic homelands". The virtue of the National Academy of Armenia's definition of the Genocide is that it evades all those POV issue while at the same time accurately defining its nature and giving dates for it, and of course the authority of the source is impeccable. Tomorrow evening I shall move it into the article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. At the same time I shall make the lede modifications I propose above, what I stress are essentially copy edit adjustments. Presently the lede misleadingly describes the nature of the post world war I massacres, their single mention as it happened until I provided the edit that was immediately reverted by an editor (for no good reason whatsoever as it turned out when it was returned here for consensus). Finally the citation and note in the lede need to be relocated into the body of the article per MOS requirements I think; certainly the note about the IAGS's acknowledgement of the 1915 genocide, which is presently misplaced.


 * I shan't be able to edit Wikipedia much over the summer, and such time as I can offer I should prefer to offer elsewhere in the project. But I shall keep this article on my watchlist and intervene vigorously on behalf of the anglophone community as I think necessary. Come fall, I may start some systematic attempts at improving the article. I'm not really bothered by the article's Good Article status. However it's certainly true that substantial parts of it need attention. I trust that our guest editors outside English Wikipedia will then condescend to allow me WP:EDITCONSENSUS rights, without the need for all these time wasting and tedious proposals on the Talk page. c1cada (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you even know what irredentism means? Western Armenia is an irredentist term. --92slim (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I had to look it up. I made no reference to "Western Armenia" in my edit. The fact of the matter is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Ottoman Empire's minority subjects living inside what is present day Turkey, as the article says. The period 1919-1923 involved Russian Armenians and refugees living outside its borders in what is today Armenia. Do you and your fellow editors dispute that? Why do you persist in reverting perfectly non-contentious edits clarifying that? c1cada (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Studies on the Genocide
I'm not really able to discern the purpose of the section Studies on the Genocide. In what way is the section different from the following section Recognition of the Genocide? After all much of it is concerned with resolutions by various bodies acknowledging the 1915 genocide. Surely those should be incorporated in the next section?

What in fact is meant by the opening sentence "The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars"? A literate native speaker of English has difficulty construing this sentence. "Corroborate" means to support or affirm an opinion and it has a specific legal meaning in that context. But the term "Armenian Genocide" is not an account or a theory. It is just the name given to the totality of events 1915 to 1923. You might as well say the Turkish Government "corroborates" it, as it certainly recognises a series of events 1915-1923.

What presumably was intended is that international genocide scholars widely affirm the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. The extent it was a genocide, pace recent material on this Talk page I don't propose to revisit, is plainly contentious. I do think, however, some reference should be made to all that without dissimulating on the issue.

Why does the following sentence cite the 2007 IAGS resolution affirming a wider genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire against Christians? The proper resolution to cite is the 1997 resolution entitled "Armenian Genocide" which is cited immediately in the introductory definition of the article, but which is in fact misplaced there because it refers specifically to the 1915 genocide and not the the whole Armenian Genocide over the period 1915-1923.

The sub-section " Origins of the word genocide", which incidentally I would be prepared to properly expand somewhat if I felt confident that it wouldn't be subjected to yet more wearying Talk Page warring, is plainly not about the origin of the word for the most part (and incidentally that image of Lemkin accompanying the audio clip is so unflattering that really I wonder if it is valuable). Most of that section needs to be relocated, leaving rather small beer I'm not prepared to fill if I don't see some acknowledgement by the management here that my efforts are valued.

Other language Wikipedias, notably the French one, have excellent sections on the recognition of the genocide. I can't offer the time for that. I can spend some time standardising the citations offered in the article, and that would be a good way of familiarising myself with an article I propose to copy edit and expand appreciably come fall, but I can't commit to cataloguing the various resolutions of recognition. However the section does need an immediate copy edit regarding the issues I highlight.

I should like to see some response, especially perhaps from new editors. Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here. c1cada (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is in no need of an expansion. It's already long enough (see: WP:Article length). This is a general article of the Armenian Genocide, we don't need to go into specifics. We have sub-articles for that. Your recent additions, consisting of thousands of characters, should be revised as well. A couple of sentences is enough for highlight the fact that the Armenian Genocide continued after WW1. Also, please don't change 'killed' into 'perished' without consulting the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding perished versus were killed, it's primarily a question of an active versus a passive construction. Active constructions aid legibility, while passive constructions tend not to. As for the choice of the word perish, that's appropriate since it has the connotation of death of a nation (deriving from the Bible OED 2.) I see someone revised it at WP:EDITCONSENSUS. IDC (though I would note it should be either "800,000 to 1,500,000" or "0.8 to 1.5 million" and not a mixture of both). If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here.
 * Regarding the length of the article, presently Armenian Genocide is a 427 Kb unicode file, while Holocaust is a 548 Kb unicode file. This suggests that Armenian Genocide can be expanded some 30% to match its canonical counterpart.
 * Regarding WP:Article length note WP:HASTE. An editor is entitled to their opinion as to whether the extent of the genocide is a "specific". I happen not to be of the opinion that it's ... erm, how to put this? ... un point de detail.
 * I see an editor has removed a personal attack. Of course one is very sorry about that. I took a hit for the team over all this. I don't mind that and perhaps it was deserved. It should be evens now. At any rate, I'm here to stay and if may offer some friendly advice to an editor, WP:Wikilawyering me and correcting my vocab is probably not the soundest strategy for seeking an accommodation. I'm beyond indignant this article is so poor in the centennial year of the genocide it treats, and I do mean to improve it. c1cada (talk)
 * The wording in this article cannot be to your liking. It needs to be discussed at least once. By not discussing, the article is being subjugated to an edit-war. 'Perished', for example, was never discussed. The idea of having passive words such as that to describe the event is considered WP:EUPHEMISM. Also, I will continue to remove personal attacks made towards me. It's not right to have these attacks linger around in this talk page. I don't believe they're well-deserved either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rubbish (the first remarks I mean). Of course perish isn't a euphemism. OED 1 is:
 * 1. a. intr. To come to a violent, sudden, or untimely end; to suffer destruction; to lose its life, cease to exist, be cut off. (Chiefly of living beings.)
 * If I have time this evening, I shall consult the corpus concerning its collocations with genocide but via Google I see this: "Shall Armenia Perish and this, including a poster of the time "Give or we perish. As for WP:EUPHEMISM it countenances avoiding terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "mass murder" for genocide.
 * An editor needs to do a lot better than this to accommodate me. c1cada (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't believe users here should be accommodating you. See: WP:DIVA. But what I do believe is that the word 'perish' is rather passive and dismisses the systematic notion of the Armenian Genocide. The wording was revised recently. Perhaps, the discussion concerning that word is not very useful. Also, I'd say 'killings' is a euphemism for genocide. After all, denalists love that terminology. They use it to say gangs or brigands did the 'killings' and that it wasn't a preplanned policy of genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a diva. Know a few. Know the difference. Using accommodate in sense OED 2. i.e. in the sense of arriving at WP:CONSENSUS an editor champions so much. Interesting I'm sure an editor's beliefs about the true meaning of perish. Why does an editor think he's entitled to impose his beliefs on the article? There's no verb in the English language for committing genocide. That is something indulged by governments or by individuals who plan and act for the government. The act of killing, murdering, or slaughtering an individual or individuals can certainly be genocidal in nature when committed as part of a genocidal policy of extermination, but it is nevertheless not committing genocide in itself. Committing genocide involves something more than merely slaughtering someone. c1cada (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Perished' can mean an untimely or sudden death. That's far from what happens during systematic genocides. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perished is the right word, supported by the corpus (for example it occurs in the Nuremberg indictments). I see you have referred me yet again to Arbcom. c1cada (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * c1cada, I support your aims in rewording and reworking parts of this article, I support your aims in merging together similar content, I support your aims at cleaning up untidy and badly-worded or badly phrased sentences, and I agree with your point made about the use of the word "corroborate". A big problem with the article is that much of it seems to have been written just as a response to Armenian genocide-denialists. So the Studies on the Genocide section exists to tell those denialists that lots and lots of books have been written proving the genocide. And the off-topic parts of the origins of the word section informs the Jewish allies of denialist Turkey that they are being very naughty Jews (with that old Jewish anti-Arab "dhimmitude" thesis thrown in to help them). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I absolutely agree and you put it splendidly. I had certainly reflected as much regarding your denialist remarks. Right on the money. I shall do such editing here as I can manage next week, but without fit for purpose oversight I'm not confident that they will be stable. c1cada (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now found the origin of "The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars": it's a copy-paste from [http://www.genocidescholars.org/sites/default/files/document%09%5Bcurrent-page%3A1%5D/documents/Scholars%20Denying%20Armenian%20Genocide--.pdf An Open Letter Concerning Historians Who Deny the Armenian Genocide October 1, 2006]:
 * The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community ...

The letter is quoted extensively in the following sentences.

In the first place the letter is about the denial of the genocide, but more importantly the passage conceals that the the authors are talking about the genocide that took place within the Ottoman Empire:
 * Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence.

The paragraph immediately before the "corroboration" sentence runs as follows:


 * On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic, well-planned and organized genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

and the overall context of the letter makes it clear that the substantive "Armenian Genocide" here refers to just the genocide of World War I and not the totality of events 1915-1923 as in the article.

I shall clarify all that when I come to edit at the section. c1cada (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

'Initial genocide'
'Initial genocide' is not a term recognized in scholarship on the subject. Its use falls into the category of OR and has no place, certainly, in the lead paragraph. Diranakir (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact the choice of phrasing "initial genocide" or "the genocide commencing 1915" (perfectly ordinary English incidentally) was designed to leave open that later attacks were genocide as well. Only the 1915-16 atrocities were committed in the two stages described. I'm quite happy to leave it out, and shall do so my next effort at achieving WP:EDITCONSENSUS


 * As for "genocidal attacks" referring to the attacks on Russian Armenians, that is precisely the terminology used by historians such as Dadrian and Akçam. Yerevantsi is quite wrong to say 'genocidal attacks' is advocated only by me. For example at page 348 of Dadrian 1994 we see the sentence "This is the backdrop against which the genocidal thrust of the invasion by the Turkish armies ... must be examined and assessed". In subsequent paragraphs Dadrian is at pains to show that the attacks were genocidal in nature. However he never describes the attacks as genocide, because as of yet the sources are insufficient to support the charge in its precise legal sense. My section start Massacres after World War I makes all that quite clear.


 * Incidentally I'm advocating absolutely nothing here. All I'm doing is record the sources. I have made it abundantly clear that my private view is that there was an ongoing genocide lasting from 1894 to 1923.


 * It would he helpful if editors refrained from using the blunt tool of edit reverts so indiscriminately. Presumably editors sophisticated enough to appraise international scholarship on the subject are able to make a straightforward adjustment to copy, without reverting it all. c1cada (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dadrian refers only to the Turkish armies thrust into the Caucasus as genocidal. He does not say the entire episode, let alone everything that comes after 1916, be termed as such. In fact, Dadrian is quite clear in his opinion that the entire Russian Armenian episode is a recurrence of the genocidal policies of 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor is quite correct to affirm that Dadrian considers the entire Russian Armenian to be a reprise of Ottoman genocidal policy, as my reverted edit implied (although an editor previously ascribed the reprise to be Republic of Turkey policy). An editor is silent on the question whether Dadrian ever declares it was a genocide. I have the book (1995). If an editor would care to quote a passage affirming that, then this whole huge dispute over a syllable, is over. I shall happily cite such an eminent authority and let the copy suggest that the genocide, in its legal sense, continued after 1918. Meanwhile, I can only commit to the sources as I find them. c1cada (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can start by reading the introduction. Dadrian refers to these episodes as not only genocide, but an extension of it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor need not have directed me to the introduction. I had already read it. The first paragraph begins by recording the genocide of World War I. It then goes on to discuss the "Turkish attempt to extend the genocide" to the Russian Armenians, the subject of my section start "Massacres after World War I" immediately reverted by an editor in full not once but twice and which always acknowledged in some detail the genocidal nature of these massacres. In the following sentence Dadrian uses the term "mass murder" (one of the euphemisms WP:EUPHEMISM deplores). He then quotes various resolutions acknowledging the genocide, all of which refer 1915-1916 only. In the final reference (penultimate paragraph) he refers to the "World War I cataclysm of genocide". None of this describes the post World War I massacres as a genocide, for reasons I shall repeat once again, that present sources don't allow that precisely defined characterization. Nevertheless no one, but denialists, doubts the genocidal nature of the post World War I massacres. Why did an editor revert me twice there, incidentally? Why in eight years of editing at this article did an editor never think of recording the Russian Armenians experience? Genocidal, genocide, or not? c1cada (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those resolutions refer to 1915-16. They refer to 1915 as the start date. This article shouldn't really address every single episode and instance of the Armenian Genocide. We have sub-articles for that (i.e. Turkish-Armenian War). This article should be concise and straight to the point because it provides a general overview of the Armenian Genocide. A simple sentence or two regarding the Turkish-Armenian war was and still is good enough. As long as it's reliably sourced, I don't see why it's so problematic. Genocidal nature is different from genocide. You shouldn't advocate the use of the former over the latter. What most historians argue, including Dadrian, is that the episodes of post WW1 massacres were a recurrence of a genocide that started in 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dadrian mentions three resolutions: the 1984 "People's Tribunal", the 1985 UN Subcommissiomn report (Whitaker), and the 1987 European Parliament resolution.


 * Concerning the People's Tribunal, its terms of reference in respect of the genocide were the massacres of the Armenian people within the Ottoman Empire (i.e. not the post World War I massacres), it heard evidence on the Armenian genocide 1915 to 1916, it determined that the deportations and massacres of 1915-1916 constitued a genocide, and it blamed the Young Turk government of 1917 to 1918 for the genocide.


 * It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the People's Tribunal did not refer to 1915-1916


 * Concerning the August 1985 UN Subcommision, this is the Whitaker report and it specifically refers to the "Ottoman massacres of Armenians in 1915-1916".


 * It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the 1985 UN Subcommission did not refer to 1915-1916.


 * Concerning the June 1987 resolution by the European Parliament, Dadrian notes that it declared the Turkish massacres of World War I to be a genocide. The resolution itself refers to the "tragic events in1915-1917 as constitutung genocide".


 * It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the 1987 European Parliament resolution did not refer to 1915-1916.

Of course the Armenian Genocide article should address the question of the massacres of the Russian Armenians and refugees outside the Ottoman Empire between 1918 to 1923. In time terms, it comprises more than half the duration of the Armenian Genocide. While the scale of fatalities does not approach that of the 1915 genocide, they are still very significant and scarcely un point de detail. The Turkish-Armenian War does not once mention these massacres. A day before the April 24 centennial of the Armenian Genocide, I added a brief account of their experience in the article. An editor immediately reverted it and as a result the centenary passed without Wikipedia remembering their history: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I might be able to edit a little later this evening. I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor. c1cada (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * When have I ever said the UN subcommision report did not refer to those dates? I have said several times already that such reports cannot be the framework for an entire article. We can refer to these reports in the article, but they can't be used as a source and a basis to our entire understanding of the AG. There's in fact hundreds of similar reports by various international governments and agencies that provide different dates to the Armenian Genocide. However, we need scholarly and academic inquiry into these matters. And it is quite clear by the current academic community that the Armenian Genocide continued after 1916. Dadrian may refer to those reports in his book, but there's no indication in his entire book as to whether he adopted the specifications of those reports as a framework to his academic work. Dadrian is quite clear on page 358 that after WW1, the "recurrence of the World War I Ittihadist pattern of genocide is evident." Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor said it when they said "None of those resolutions refer to 1915-16. They refer to 1915 as the start date.". An editor can't unsay that and an editor was wrong to say it. Regarding an editor's p 358 quote of Dadrian's, that's quite correct. The entire purpose of the chapter "The Kemalist Thrust against Russian Armenia" is to underline it was a continuation of Ottoman (genocidal) policy. Nevertheless he doesn't call it genocide because the sources aren't adequate at the moment and in the sentence before, necessary to set the context and which you omit, he refers to the "established genocidal policy".


 * When I resubmit an edit for the lede to correct the two errors of fact there, I shall adopt Dadrian's "attempt to extend the genocide" and omit all mention of the date 1915 in referencing the genocide, though I am afraid that latter has the potential of misleading the reader into believing that the post World War I massacres were not genocide as they didn't involve the two step process of proscription and deportation. c1cada (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because deportations ended in 1916, doesn't mean the Armenian Genocide ended. I don't see why Dadrian's source is not adequate enough to ascribe the view that policies of eradicating the Armenians did not end just because deportations did. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * His sources. I'm not an expert on the Armenian genocide. I don't presume to be one and I'm editing here on happenstance. That is to say I was editing at Perinçek v. Switzerland and I came here because the POTD for 24 April 2015 affirmed eight years of genocide, which I know is not acknowledged (I mean, I think a single state in the United States actually affirms that). I'm happy to reference Dadrian. I have already. Does an editor have a problem with this for example? But Dadrian is simply one source, noted for his position on the genocide. As it happens I'm prepared to give undue weight to his opinion in the lead, because he's supported by other historians such as Akcam and commentators like Fisk. But I'm not prepared to go further than the source permits.
 * I'm taking time off this particular debate, because it's becoming obsessive. I shall be editing again at the lede a few days hence to clarify the matters I highlight. c1cada (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Happenstance is not a promising approach to editing this article, as reflected in the fact that C1cada tells me on May 1 that 'killings' was better than 'genocide', but then goes along with the reversion to 'genocide' without the least objection or qualification. I would ask him to point out to me where on the Talk page he, in the first place, explained why 'killings' was better than 'genocide' and thus account for what otherwise seems an unnecessary and distracting intervention. Diranakir (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Promising or not, 'happenstance' is how I came here. I'm not a single-purpose editor of Wikipedia. I have a special interest in privacy issues, starting articles like Max Schrems and Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America. I know a certain amount of international and European Union law and edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland, where you and I had a constructive and amicable intervention here reverting together an edit that was manifestly matter-of-fact not true. As I have explained in my comment at the ongoing Arbcom hearing an editor has brought against me I am anxious to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law. I came to this article (thus the 'happenstance') because the caption, blurp (sic), for the POTD of 24 April 2015 referred to "eight years of genocide", which matter of fact is not acknowledged by any historian, organisation, or nation state of note in its legal sense. That is as matter of factly so as the issue we agreed together to revert at Perinçek v. Switzerland, where an editor had claimed 'The Court also declared it is not possible to legally characterise the 1915 events as genocide.'


 * A glance at your 1 May edit suffices to see that in fact you were about reverting my edit modifying the lede in its entirety, and not making a constructive WP:EDITCONSENSUS modification to the copy regarding "killings". As for "killings" the issue is simply a copy issue. In the first place we need to avoid giving the impression that the genocide is acknowledged as extending over the whole eight years and in the second place we need to avoid giving the impression that the genocidal killings over the whole eight years were the results of forced conscription and deportations. In the case of the post World War I mass murder (to use Dadrian's phrase and not as a eupemism) that was not so.


 * I repeat that after eight years and more of active editing, this article never contained any description of the post World War I killings. When I provided a carefully researched and cited start section on these in time for the 24 April commemoration, after first offering it to established editors here, it was immediately reverted.


 * Reverting edits is a very blunt instrument for achieving WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I ask that you be more constructive. c1cada (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A glance at your reply is enough to see that you did not discuss the change from genocide to killings before making it. This is at odds with your repeated reminders to seek consensus. And, putting it in ordinary English, what exactly does it mean to say the killings issue is simply a copy issue ? Diranakir (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think my English can be said to be extraordinary. Essentially you are asking me to repeat myself. The issue concerns the sentence you restored commencing "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...". But this article concerns the whole period of the Armenian Genocide 1915-1923 of which the mass murder (using Dadrian's phrase) of Russian Armenians and refugees committed outside the Ottoman Empire 1918-1923 is a substantial part. For example it occupies an entire section VIII of Dadrian's standard history The History of the Armenian Genocide. However these events, certainly genocidal in nature, are nevertheless not presently acknowledged as a genocide in its legal sense: compare the title of Dadrian's part VIII The Push Beyond Domestic Genocide: The Targeting Of The Russsian Armenian (30 pages) with his part VI The Initiation and Consummation Of The Genocide Under Cover Of The First World War (100 pages). But the problem is that an ordinary reader of English will construe that sentence as implying the entire period is acknowledged as a genocide and moreover that the latter mass murder was planned and implemented in two stages as well.
 * So we have to find a work round that. "Killings" is a neutral word which follows on naturally from 'killed" in the previous paragraph, which has been there before I started editing. I'm surprised editors here find it contentious in the circumstances. I really don't see why a relatively non-contentious issue centering around a single word can't be thrashed out at WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
 * I have found a form of words (citing Dadrian) which satisfies concerns and I will WP:BOLD it at some point. There are two errors of fact in the lede that need to be corrected. c1cada (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dadrian does not mention in any part of his book that the genocide ended in 1916. The murdering of refugees in 1918, for example, was still a large part of the policy of genocide. Also, you claim only one state users the 1915-1923. How sure are you of that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right about Dadrian and 1916. But he does make it clear that for him the genocide was conducted during the First World War and he stops short of calling the subsequent mass murder (his words) of Russian Armenians and refugees outside the Ottoman Empire a genocide. If by the murder of refugees in 1918 you mean those that took place during that latter time, then no he doesn't describe it as genocide. As for an editor's query about a state (that would be a state within the United States of America) acknowledging 1915-1923, I'm not sure. I just noted it as curious in passing as I was researching the issue of acknowledgement. Under normal circumstances I should be happy to assist an editor's curiosity, but frankly so much demand on my time is being made here that I must needs decline. However, my offer to an editor stands: if they can find a source of similar standing to Dadrian that unequivocally asserts those post-war massacres indeed were genocide, then by all means let's cite it. No-one should be more pleased than I. c1cada (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know of not one state resolution in the United States that refers to the Armenian Genocide under the years of 1915-1916. See for yourself: . Again, Dadrian makes it clear that what the Turkish government did in 1918-1920 and so forth was a recurrence of genocide. If you want a source to disprove that, believe me, Dadrian shouldn't be the one you should be using. He was a pioneer in the study of post-WW1 genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor wishes me to see for myself. OK, I'll try New Jersey (where I have a home). The relevant PDF I should see for myself is here. What I see there is a resolution recognising 24 April as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day". That's not the same as recognising any part of it as genocide as defined in international law. It's not a resolution recognising genocide, either in law or in ordinary English for that matter. The wording is:


 * This joint resolution designates April 24 of each year as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day," in recognition of the atrocities suffered by the Armenians at the hands of the government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 through 1923. During this period, Armenians were subject to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre,  and starvation, all of which were planned and orchestrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire. These horrific events are widely recognized today by numerous scholars, governments, and international organizations as the Armenian Genocide.


 * It recognise "atrocities" and not "genocide". The recent German parliament resolution does, however, unequivocally acknowledge genocide, but confines the acknowledgement to the events of World War I.


 * As for Dadrian, it's incumbent on an editor per WP:VERIFY to demonstrate Dadrian's unequivocal characterization of the Russian Armenian and refugee experience as genocide.


 * But an editor need not work with me too hard at all this because when I do return my WP:BOLD edit, it will be drafted with as much skill as the New Jersey resolution to avoid all such contentions. An editor can have the last word. c1cada (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read the rest of the resolution? For example, this part: "Whereas, By 1923, the Ottoman Empire had eliminated virtually the entire Armenian demographic presence in the vast majority of the historical homeland of the Armenian people"?


 * Or this part; "April 24 of each year is designated as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day," in recognition of the atrocities faced by the Armenians at the hands of the government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 through 1923."


 * Just because it says 'atrocities' doesn't mean it's not genocide. 1915-1923 specifically referenced as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day". If it were merely atrocities, it would be "Armenian Atrocities Remembrance Day". Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor actually had two last words. I claim one right of reply against my oath. An editor might care to look at U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 247 September 12, 1984. This declares 24 April 1985, as "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man", referencing "especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, and in whose memory this date is commemorated by all Armenians and their friends throughout the world." It is nevertheless not a recognition of the genocide. If it were, then it would be the second such recognition in history after the People's Tribunal (which recognised only the 1915-1916 genocide, contrary to what an editor averred here). Doesn't an editor think that such an acknowledgement from such an august body would have been mentioned by Dadrian? Better known?
 * That it is exactly as I say might be further surmised by an editor on reflecting that the real United States resolution on Armenian Genocide is still under consideration (as far as I know - I shall enquire of the next august Representative I happen to meet and report back). c1cada (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope (straight from the horse's mouth). Incidentally there was an earlier 1975 resolution designating April 24 "National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man" referring to the Armenian genocide. If that was recognition proper, it would be the earliest such recognition. c1cada (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Errors of fact in the lede
Two significant errors of fact in the lede remain. An attempt by me to correct those in a non-contentious way, after elaborate discussion in the section Proposal: Modifications to the lede, was not only reverted by editors but referred to Arbcom as evidence of non-consensus disruptive editing.

The two errors of fact are as follows:


 * 1) Error of fact 1: " ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." That is an error because all standard histories of the Armenian Genocide treat also the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) of Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire in territory within the present-day Republic of Armenia.


 * 1) Error of fact 2: "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ..." That is an error because the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) that occurred after World War I has yet to be characterised by historians as a genocide in its strict legal sense. It is moreover poor copy because it implies the mass murder was also implemented in two phases, but it was not.

What do editors here propose to do about these, other than reverting all my attempts to correct them?
 * ?The diff you gave does not attempt to correct the "historic homeland" thing. Your error of fact 2 is in error: the late WW1 and post WW1 killings have been termed genocide by sources, and have not been separated from the 1915 killings as a distinct event. I think it is the "two phases" thing that is false. Don't know what Armenian vested interest or pov that serves, but surely there will be one. I've taken a tiny part of your diff changes and added them with a small variation. Will see if they remain. Plus I've changed the wording for the deportation of intellectuals bit - many survived so it is not appropriate to state they were killed or tortured and thus suggest all of them died or were tortured. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, apologies about the diff. I meant my edit addressing reverting editor's concerns: "Accomodating various reverting editors' points. Editors, please try in turn to accommodate the existing copy when you make edits...". I'll clarify why I thought that non-contentious in a moment.
 * Regarding "genocide" my position is that we should reserve the term for the crime of genocide as defined in international law. Recognising the "Armenian Genocide" is not the same thing as recognising the fact of genocide, as a glance at United States resolutions confirm. What we need most of all for "genocide" is the opinion of recognised historians. I'm hopeful that the European Court of Human Rights will clarify as well in the Perinçek v. Switzerland appeal. In my edits I have always left open the question that the later post war massacres of Russian Armenians and refugees were a genocide and from the outset followed Dadrian and Akcam in describing these attacks as genocidal in intent.
 * I looked at both your edits. I thought them acute and don't dispute them. I think it's unlikely that you and I will ever come to blows over this article. I was especially glad to see that you returned my "0.8 to 1.5 million". I've noted on this page that my opponents here are best not advised to wikilawyer me or find fault with my vocab. On my maths they stand not one iota of a chance ...  (the wikilink being deeper than time travel as it happens).
 * At the risk of overextending my welcome (such as it ever was), I'll give the rationale for my my edit. I started with "The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of Armenians in its territory and surrounding regions during 1915-1923.[10] The total number of people killed in the genocide has been estimated at between 800,000 to 1.5 million. The initial genocide, carried out during World War I, targeted the Ottoman Empire's minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. Later genocidal attacks targeted Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Armenia.". There I first repeated the Armenian Genocide Museum's (AGM) definition, but retained the original "systematic" of the article, which is not in the AGM's definition. I introduced "genocide" immediately (as it had not been subsequently) because it not disputed that genocide was committed during the period and that is the commonly understood subtsnace of "Armenian Genocide". I retained "killed" and "800,000" in place of "perished" (unquestionably the right word as ordinary readers of English will know) and "0.8" I originally supplied, because I'm not a diva who can be big-arsed (and god knows some are totally huge) about absolutely everything. The rest was simply a statement of matter of fact about the events, correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey. A reverting editor was quite wrong to say that "genocidal attacks" was my OR. It explicitly repeats what Dadrian and Akcam commit to. Moreover it does not preclude characterising the attacks as a genocide later in the article (and in the Massacres after World War I section I started, twice reverted with no input of substance by an editor, I gave due weight from the outset to those historians' views). Finally, concerning my edit, I removed "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I ..." at the start of the second paragraph because that was no longer needed, and substituted "The genocide commencing 1915 was planned ..." where the "1915" so impatiently deleted by another editor, was included precisely so not to imply that the later post war massacres were not also a genocide, as an ordinary reader of English must needs infer as those massacres were of the conventional visceral sort and not implemented in two phases.


 * That edit was a carefully considered edit addressing other editors' concerns that I genuinely thought was non-contentious. It was immediately reverted by an editor who took me to an Arbcom procedure with the request that I be banned, so intrusive and non-constructive thought they it.


 * I don't expect to have much time over the summer editing Wikipedia. But unless I am actually banned, I do propose to continue editing here. Meanwhile I shall content myself with standardising the citations until such time I hear from Arbcom as to whether they intend to chop me or not. I gather their proceedings are even more protracted than ECHR's. c1cada (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @c1cada: 'correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey'. Who said 'solely'? Looks like a straw man. Diranakir (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I can be erecting a straw man over solely when the current definition defines the Armenian genocide as " ... the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." It's slightly wordier than the original "the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey", but in either case it's perfectly clear to an ordinary reader of English that it's defining the Genocide as taking place solely in territory occupied by the present-day Republic of Turkey. That's not true, and even were it true I question its relevance; strictly speaking about as relevant as saying the Holocaust took place in territory occupied by the present-day European Union. Kudos of course for knowing the "straw man" fallacy - can't say I ever did before coming to Wikipedia.

Put another way, what would your beef be with my attempt to correct it in the edit you reverted, where I inserted "and surrounding regions" per the Armenian Genocide Museum and explicitly referenced the Republic of Armenia in the same way as the Republic of Turkey was?

You reverted my entire edit, if I remember correctly, on my use of the word "killings". However, before I came to edit at this article, its sole reference to the Russian Armenians and refugees experience I wished to record in more detail was the following:
 * Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence.

Would you be ok then with my using "mass killings" when I come to WP:BOLD a new effort at correcting the lede. While you are it, I should much like to hear your comment on an editor's effort to implicate the Republic of Turkey in the Genocide. What's your take on that, please? c1cada (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you simply want to simply replace words "territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey" by "Turkey" in lede ("Ottoman Empire" is not necessarily appropriate as a historical state), that's fine. No one will probably object this. If you want to write about something, which strictly speaking does not fall under definition of Armenian genocide, that's fine too. Create another page (see this comment) and briefly reflect it in the body of this page. After that, you can try to slightly fix lede - just to make it consistent with body of page. You should realize that making changes on pages like that one is very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your response at the Arbcom process. I didn't respond, not because I didn't think it worth responding to, but because I'm not terribly interested in the Arbcom proceedings. Of course I'll abide by whatever decision they eventually make (obviously will have to if I'm chopped), but the norms of the community is not something that very fascinates me. For example another editor's contribution there was simply gobbledygook to me and I'm not the slightest bit curious as to what they might portend. I note however that you contributed nothing to my proposals here and I reject your slight that I'm pro-Turkey POV-pushing. As I mentioned in my submission there, by far the best lede for this article is the French one. An off the cuff translation follows:


 * The "Armenian Genocide" was a genocide perpetrated from April 1915 to July 1916 (considered today to have continued until 1923) [Note 1], in which two thirds of the Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey perished due to deportations, famine, and large-scale massacres. It was planned and executed by the party in power at the time, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), better known as the "Young Turks", consisting in particular of the truimvirate of officers Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Jemal Pasha, head of the Ottoman Empire then engaged in World War I as allies of the Central Powers. Considered as the first genocide of the twentieth century, it claimed the lives of about one million two hundred thousand Armenians from Anatolia and Armenia. [Note 2]


 * The notes are respectively:


 * Note 1: Recent historiography considers the genocide ended with the signing of the Lausanne Treaty of July 23, 1923, due to the massacres that took place over the period 1920-1923. Similarly, estimates of the number of victims often cover the period 1915-1923.


 * Note 2: This figure is generally accepted by historians of the period; but the record of the massacres and deportations of Armenians is not, however, unanimiously accepted. Anahide Ter Minassian wrote: "If no one now disputes the lethality of forced displacement or the massacres that accompanied them, the controversy has been ever since 1919 the number of victims (1,500,000 according to the Armenians, 600,000 to 800,000 according to the Turks)... [and then further quoting and citing]"


 * An editor might care to notice "perishes". Other good features of this lede I shall happily expand on to interested editors, but not to this editor who testified at Arbcom that I am a pro-Turkey POV-pusher. c1cada (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not only me who found these your edits problematic (edit summary). My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @c1cada: So you have no problem with 'Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey' as a geographic descriptor despite its leaving out the attacks on the Russian Armenians? Diranakir (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tittle suggestion: Why this is considered as Genocide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Ethnic_cleansing_vs._genocide

According to wikipedia, this should be considered as Ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

--88.252.211.58 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello IP. A warm welcome to Armenian Genocide from the little consenters also editing here. Genocide is a precisely defined term in international law you can read about here. The essential distinction between ethic cleansing and genocide is explained in the second link you provide. In this case the deportation orders of 1915-1916 and the massacres that ensued during the marches are plainly genocide, while the subsequent massacres in later years after the end of World War I were at the very least genocidal in character since a continuity in both policy and in parties to the massacres can be demonstrated. c1cada (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Two words: Raphael Lemkin. And please, this question has been asked a gazillion times already; remember, this is NOT a forum. --92slim (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Raphael Lemkin did not provide the legal definition of "genocide", and now that we have moved away from WP:EDITCONSENSUS inevitably the Talk Page will become more discursive. What do the big consenters incidentally think of my three proposals? I was really hoping you would take over the post World War I massacres section, showing me how as it were. What do you think of my modest effort so far? I'm sure there's loads of stuff you know to better it.c1cada (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this section should have been erased as off-topic. Wikipedia is not a source, so the anon's suggestion had no validity. A short reply like that, if erasure was not the answer, is all that was needed to be said, not three separate posts. This talk page with its archives is already impossibly long so I think editors need to take more responsibility for controlling what gets onto it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We chirp. I think if the Talk page get a lot of these sort of things, then we're justified in dealing with them brusquely. So far, I'm content to answer them as they come. Wikipedia is currently in crisis so some say, no longer the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, because amongst other things we are not welcoming enough. Apparently the rot set in about eight years ago. Just doing my bit for the new order. But right, Tiptoe, if it irritates you, tell me straight out in  no uncertain terms. I can handle it, honest. No shrinking violet me. Thanks for your post on irredentism. c1cada (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just got round to reading that article on Wikipedia. Maybe one day maybe I'll see an article written by someone who actually knows Wikipedia. "The loose collective running the site today" - come on, the reality is the exact opposite! A system where only administrators propose and appoint administrators produces a very close-knit and hive-minded cult of administrators, not a loose collective. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you kill the people who are victims of ethnic cleansing, it is genocide. Of course ethnic cleansing can also mean that you force people to leave a particular area. --Vitzque (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning this obvious systemic bias of the article !
I myself look at this article as a most clear example of what a "systemic bias" could be. Since the article is heavily propagating the claims that an "Armenian Genocide" has occurred and under-representing the counterarguments which falsify these claims, I myself was going to tag the article with Template:Systemic bias such as the following: {{SAFESUBST: #invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__|$B= {{Ambox }} The number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure. Total Muslim deaths and refugees during these centuries are estimated to be several millions. It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence took place, close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey. According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease. In the discussion about the Armenian Genocide, McCarthy denies the genocide and is considered as the leading pro-Turkish scholar. --95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Just because the Turks are Muslims while the Armenians are not, doesn't give a reason to ignore the millions of the Turks who were killed in the same period of time.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC) {{reflist}}
 * name = Systemic bias
 * small = {{{small|}}}
 * type = content
 * image = Unbalanced scales.svg
 * class = ambox-systemic-bias
 * issue = This {{{what|article}}} may show systemic bias.{{#if:{{{bias|}}}|&#32;In particular, there may be a strong bias in favor of {{{bias}}}.|}}
 * fix  = It may require cleanup to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone. Please see the discussion on the }}}|talk page.
 * date = {{{date|}}}
 * cat  = Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes
 * all  = All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes


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


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

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


 * Which victims are you concerned about? The 10 million Turks (mostly unarmed civilians) who were either massacred or deported because of their faith & ethnicity or the 500,000-1 million Armenians who were simply deported (without any act of massacring)?--95.141.20.198 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about all victims. I hope that if there are no Wiki articles for genocides that you are aware of, that you will go and start them.  That would be a good thing.  I also encourage you to initiate a section in this current article called "denial of genocide" or some such thing, with good sources. But be sure to go to the Wiki article Genocide and read that - perhaps that is where your fundamental disagreement is. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice propaganda there. 10 million Turks massacred "between 1821-1922" and 1 million Armenians massacred (not simply deported) in 1915 alone is a big proportional difference, as a matter of fact. --92slim (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this entire section should be deleted as off-topic. The OP created it as a substitute for his/her inability to place the Systematic Bias tag in the article, and as a substitute to placing valid justifications for that tag. This already over-extended talk page is not a suitable forum for other articles / other subjects discussions, and the OP has read the advice given so there is no reason to keep it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not bothered one way or the other. Loads of space on the servers and it is not emitting CO{{sub|2}}... well the recording of it anyway, though I can imagine the creation of it might well have been accompanied by copious venting of the stuff. c1cada (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source Wikipedians may not know
International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, see. This journal published research papers and reviews about the Armenian Genocide and genocide studies in general. I think that Wikipedians should utilize this prestigious source to make the article better reflect the current research trend - also to make the article closer to the truth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they are using each and every Armenian source, including Mr Akçam, that support their stance, and those writers who dissent are called denialist, independently of their nationalities. --176.239.95.241 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To the above IP; hello! :) PS. Akcam is not Armenian :) --92slim (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some say he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.239.33.90 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some Turkish racists? Hello, possible sockpuppet of E4024 and very timely friend (or sockpuppet) of User:Tiptoeblabla. How are you doing? --92slim (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert to stable version
This article has gone through a lot this past month. A lot of information has been added without consensus mostly by a user who is now topic banned. The harvard refs done by this user is also a disaster. They're not even properly done. I propose reverting this article to a more stable version. If there is any information we'd like to add, it should be done in a constructive and consensus building manner. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should specify what version you want to revert to so other editors can do a comparison. --Neil N  talk to me 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he means his own version of course! And since he is useing the word "disaster", it is worth remembering that the version he thinks preferable was such a disaster that it failed the GA appraisal at the first hurdle. I oppose any attempt by EtienneDolet to indulge in blind reverting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The version I propose to revert to is this: . I don't have my own version of this article. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. On the other hand, the version we currently see is one that was heavily edited by a disruptive user who was recently topic banned under AA2. The harvard refs are a disaster. They don't include page numbers and they're not properly sorted. Huge chunks of information were added without consensus. Above all, the user was banned for doing all of this. If there is any information that should be added, it should be done so in a constructive matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By "your version" I mean the one you presented for GA assessment. It is not a valid editing act to make a blanket revert ([]) of content just because that content was placed there by an editor subsequently blocked. Refs can be fixed. You need to state the specific content you would like to be removed and explain your reasons why you want it removed. Many of the differences are tiny one word changes that seem legitimate (I don't know who made them), some other bigger changes seem valid. For example, why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section? The Fatwa content also seems relevant, and again I don't know who added it. You know what I think of the "consensus" and what it has done to this article. I do not believe that this "consensus" you talk about is required to add properly referenced valid new content or to make legitimate changes to existing content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This version is not a GA quality article either. In fact, it's much worse. It has been heavily edited by a topic banned user who was banned for causing even more problems to this article than before. If there are any sections we should keep, it can be easily discussed here at the TP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so we only need to discuss things we should keep, as opposed to discussing things we should delete? I doubt you mean that! My discussion input to start is that we should keep everything added between those two diffs unless proper arguments are presented for the removal of specific content. Please explain why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section, and so on? You cannot remove content just because it was put there by a topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was unilaterally imposed by a disruptive editor who did not believe the genocide continued after 1916. The user has, for example, employed a variety of POV terms to that effect (i.e. 'Genocidal' as in genocide-like rather than 'genocide'). Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This mess of an article needs better structuring, a chronological structuring is appropriate, so I support the retention of the "Massacres after World War I" section. The religious component of the massacres needs to be addressed, so I support the retention of the Fatwa content (it is described as a declaration of Jihad, a Holy War, in other sources). Many of the other differences are correcting typos or just tiny changes in words that seem to mostly be changes for the better - so I support those being retained too. So I oppose any revert back to any earlier version. You have not presented any argument for the removal of content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that there must be a reversion made to reinstate a stable version. This current version, as I have already said, has many POV and referencing issues. I suggest reverting it to this version:. I would also like to see some more community input on this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, User:c1cada was blocked so his disruptive edits can be safely reverted. --92slim (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EtienneDolet. I made my position quite clear. I oppose any blanket revert. Despite that, you have gone ahead and broke basic Wikipedia rules by making exactly such blanket revert . If opposition to such a proposed editing act has been expressed, you CANNOT mass delete content for no other reason than because it was put there by a subsequently topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he can. --92slim (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I haven't done any of those things. The intellectuals were mainly executed per the sources (never mentioned 24th of April at all) and that some Turkish intellectuals (eg. Halide Edip) saved some of them. I smell butthurt. --92slim (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I haven't done any of those things" - so I suppose the cited diffs are made up and I hacked into Wikipedia's servers! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I explained what I have done above. --92slim (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And the same unconstructive edits (i.e., adding blatant falsehoods) have been reinserted by Étienne Dolet. Reinserted without any justification given either here or in his typically vapid edit summaries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read above, rinse and repeat. --92slim (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, as opposed to your claims, the content I added of them being mainly executed (better said, the content you deleted) is referenced in Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. Now I'm adding it here too. --92slim (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Could you please cite the sources which reference this information; it might or might not qualify, I am not sure. Perhaps you or another user can give some further details. Thanks a lot. --92slim (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://umdearborn.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.birikimdergisi.com/birikim/article.aspx?mid=548&article=%22This%20Conduct%20Was%20a%20Crime%20Against%20Humanity%22:%20An%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Initiative%20to%20Apologize%20to%20the%20Armenians
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/conference/yahuda_bauer.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ictj.org/en/news/coverage/article/935.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/PressReleases/TurkishArmenianReconciliation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120209091255/http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257 to http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_06/061104_vo_gul.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.meseledergi.com/?p=192
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://globalpolitician.com/default.asp?2661-armenia-turkey
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aktion-patenschaften.de/autoren/w02.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://readersdigest.ca/mag/2006/10/genocide.php

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Signifigant error or flaw soft pedals the nature of Mezirah internment
Robert Fiske has elaborated how subtle downplaying of the historical facts permeates discussion of the Armenian Holocaust/genocide and it appears to be the case that RS establishes that the march to Mezirah was not a march to imprisonment but rather a march to extermination. Glossing the distinction between death camps and labor camps is a patter we have seen for instance in the characterization of the German death camps and at the risk of overstating the case it seems to be that the march to Mezirah was a march to death. https://books.google.com/books?id=2d2eSGCwrZYC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Mezireh+prison+armenian&source=bl&ots=TSS2o0t2vv&sig=rk4WDVWGK4iXUS0UGXGAe7t9CKs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBmoVChMI5aO2qJiiyAIV0y6ICh0DqQRk#v=onepage&q=Mezireh%20prison%20armenian&f=false Days of Tragedy in Armenia states specifically that people were "sent to Mizerah and three days later were sent to their death." Thus it seems that the text below the picture in the box at the upper right is misleading, suggesting, as do many users of the picture, that it is a march to imprisonment. It is not, it is a march to death. There is a difference. I am not a particularly good eloquent English WP advocate but perhaps there will be enough sense to get support fo a slight tweak to the d text as the people in that picture were probably dead s within a matter of days. AccountInCompliance (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you are asking: tweak the caption wording using the content in Riggs as a source. But images are meant to reflect content in the article, and this mess of an article is completely useless as far as well-organized actual content goes. In a well written article there would already be content there that would make clear what happened at Harput, and at places in Mezireh like the infamous "Red Konak" prison. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No Specifics of Ottoman Government in Introduction
I just started a research project on this topic, and my first issue is no mention of the Three Pashas in the introduction. From my knowledge they were the faces behind the genocide, but this isn't mentioned until the section Prelude to the Genocide. I understand their actions led up to the genocide, but I find it inconvenient that they're not also mentioned in the introduction, as I needed more information on the people behind the genocide. I also feel that the Committee of Union and Progress should be mentioned in the introduction as well, as they are listed as the actual perpetrators of the genocide. Again, I know very little of the topic and just wanted things a bit more accessible. Zugzwang55 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Blanket reverts
I hadn’t noticed that the blanket revert by EtienneDolet on 4 June 2015 removed the bibliographical reference to Thomas de Waal 2015. It is one of the most recent books written by a respected journalist/historian and I have put it back in. I don’t know what other appropriate information was swept away by the undiscriminating broom. A good example why blanket reverts are problematic. Joel Mc (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time I restored some of the content removed by that blanket revert, and I opposed it. But the content you are adding is just one book in an already extensive reading list. What significance does this book have, given that it is not being used as a ref for any of the article content? Just because it is recent is not a valid reason to place it there. And he isn't particularly well respected as a journalist and especially not as a historian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was only when I looked for the De Waal reference that I discovered that the blanket revert by EtienneDolet had removed the reference that I had put in a month or so before. A blanket revert is a blunt tool which indiscriminately sweeps up all info.  If my De Waal entry had been reverted by itself, I would have been most happy to discuss my reason for putting it in.  Having read many excellent reviews of the  book, I read it myself and felt that its updated info—not to mention its balanced approach--would be useful not only  to readers of the article who want to explore further, but to any editors who might want to work on the article.  De Waal is in fact a respected journalist, historian, and expert on the Caucasus (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/thomas-de-waal/great-catastrophe/) If the reading list is too extensive, then perhaps it would be best to get rid of older references. Joel Mc (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * De Waal is not respected by academics. My opinion if him is that he is a self-seeking pundit commentator who has parasitically attached himself to the "Armenian Question" for easy gain and easy notability. He knowingly peddles lies and distortions disguised as reasonableness and neutrality. As a believer in honest reasonableness and neutrality I find him objectionable. That, as I said, is just my personal opinion and has no bearing on the book's mention; but my point about there being no content in the article that cites this book is a valid objection against its inclusion. After all, the article does not exist to advertise books. I wonder if other similar articles have "reading lists" - by being inevitably selective such a list seems intrinsically pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Eliticide" category
I removed this cat because the article does not speak of eliticide.

reverted with edit summary "eliticide does not preclude genocide". Of course, when genocide happens, elite is killed too. This does not mean that we have to add add category "eliticide" into every genocide page. Genocide also kills old people. We don't put every genocide into "senicide category. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. But I also believe that that category may be suitable for Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable resources
Just to note, I am removing two unreliable sources ( and ) from the lead that are currently placed after the sentence "Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy." Firstly, these sources do not in any way support the statement that many historians consider these as the part of the same genocidal policy. Secondly, these webpages were written by students and interns, one even majoring in a completely unrelated topic ("a junior at Georgetown University, majoring in international political economy"). They are by no means scholarly sources, the resources they use are unreliable websites and the information they contain is often blatantly inaccurate e.g. the death toll they give for the Assyrian genocide (750,000) far exceeds that given by any respectable scholar working on the field (150,000-300,000). In this light, we need reliable sources to support the statement which does not seem to be substantiated anywhere else in the article. I will be working on that. --GGT (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have brought over sources that support the statement from the Greek genocide article and brought the wording in line with the wording there ("some scholars and organizations have recognized these events as part of the same genocidal policy"), which seems to be more appropriately supported by Schaller and Zimmerer's introduction: "The Thematic Issue of the JGR, the republication of which is proposed here, is the first publication, which addresses these wider issues." If this is deemed controversial, please do revert my edit and bring the topic up at Talk:Greek genocide as well. --GGT (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The new sources are an improvement. I agree that the old ones were invalid. Words like "some" or "many" or "most" are context related. Obviously, "most" historians have not written a single word about the Armenian Genocide. I'd say that if the majority of scholars who have worked on the study of the Greek or Assyrian genocides consider those events to be part of the same genocidal policy as the Armenian Genocide, then the word "most" is appropriate. If a large proportion but not the majority do, then it is "many", if a small minority do, then it is "some". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

MiszaBot
I have deleted this code that archives talk page content after 30 days. It is partly responsible for creating the ludicrously large number of talk page archives, and is responsible for burying within those archives discussions of ongoing issues and rendering those past discussions all but useless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Old Lies
Seems they never die. . "The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and sent to their deaths some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople" is the latest version of a particularly long running lie. The main article Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 lists the names of the deported. 77 are listed as having been "killed". 81 are listed as having "survived". A similar number listed as fate unknown, and some are listed simply as having died (from a variety of causes, some indirectly arising from their deportation, some from natural causes, some from random accidents like falling from a horse). Thus, as I had pointed out during an earlier appearance of the lie there is no justification for text that claims they were all "sent to their deaths" or "all killed" or "all executed" or anything similar. About 1/3rd are known to have been killed, about 1/3rd are known to have survived. And those that were killed were killed over a considerable period of time - not within a matter of days of their arrest, so text claiming or suggesting that they were arrested for the immediate purpose of "sending them to their deaths" is unjustified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder why some editors like them so much? Please retract this baseless personal attack. After you retract it, I will reply to you. Thank you. Dr.   K.  03:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A blatant falsehood has been repeatedly inserted into the article by many editors over the course of many months. I have on several occasions pointed out that falsehood, and on several occasions removed it only to see it eventually return. So the question "why are they doing it?" is a very valid one given that nobody except myself has bothered to explain their reasoning on the talk page. So the question will not be withdrawn. You cannot speak for those other editors, but you can answer for yourself. Why are you inserting content that has been shown to be clearly wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not what you said. You said: I wonder why some editors like them so much? You used the verb "like" which is an egregious personal attack. And to make sure you directed it against me you linked to one of my edits. So I ask you again to retract the PA before I reply to your questions. Dr.   K.  03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is starting to look like you are searching for excuses to avoid explaining your editing reasons. You spent time restoring a version of the content I removed. Presumably you did "like" that content you added. If you did not "like" it, why did you insert it? If you genuinely consider my protest at the unwarranted restoration an "egregious personal attack" would you please take it to the appropriate forum. If you want, I can add diffs for when various other editors added the same content, if that will make things less personal in your eyes. None of this absolves you of the requirement to explain your edits here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me be more clear then. I guarantee to you that I will reply to your questions but I will not do so under threat of verbal violence. So for the last time: Please retract your PA. Dr.   K.  04:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You actually are searching for excuses to avoid explaining your editing reasons! Astonishing. You have a requirement to explain your edits. That is what this talk page is for. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You should learn to AGF on top of stopping your personal attacks. I refuse to discuss anything until you stop your attacks. I am not obliged to talk to someone who uses verbal violence to prevail in discussions. Dr.   K.  04:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your concerns regarding the 2,345 figure. However, I think we can agree that most deportees either died or were killed. But I'd encourage to simplify it by saying most of those deported were killed because dying due to forced death marches should constitute murder, especially during the AG where death marches played an instrumental role. I also don't like the fact that the lead is now stuffed with citations over this. First things first, that should be removed. Besides, that's encouraged under WP:WHYCITE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for some actual content discussion. I think all that can be said from the sources which consider the actual identities of those deported is that about 1/3rd are known to have been killed, about 1/3rd are known to have survived, and the remainder had unknown fates or died of natural causes or from random accidents. Of course it could be argued those many of those 20 who are recorded as having just "died" rather than being "killed" were put in the physical position of dying through being deported, but such victims are not generally included as victims or we would be including those that died of disease or starvation in Russian Armenia or in independent Armenia into the total number of genocide victims (though personally I consider that they were). And it is likely that most of the unknown fates are unknown because they died or were killed. I think all sources would include those dying due to forced death marches in the total number of genocide victims since death marches were a method used to implement that genocide. I would be happy with text that read something like "of those deported, only around 80 persons are known to have survived". Having text that claims "they all died" is a serious misrepresentation of what happened. The 2345 issue is much more difficult to deal with if we have editors wanting it in the article because many sources contain that number. I think it is very credible that 2345 is just an error by whoever typset Uras's 1950 "Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi" - but it has been blindly reproduced by probably thousands of sources. The vagueness in the use of the 2345 figure (for example, Dadrian assumes the 2345 are separate from the April 24 235, Akcam however assumes the 235 are include in the 2345 figure, Uras doesn't appear to mention the 235, only 2345) seems further proof that it is all just a typo. But it is OR until some usable source says it is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not for the "80 persons are known to have survived" because readers will be confused. "Well then, what happened to the rest?" would be the natural response to it. I think the safest bet, for now, is to just say "most of them either died or were killed" because that conforms to the sources and it's simply common sense. We still need to discuss whether forced death marches constitute a systematic attempt of murder. I myself am a proponent of that kind of wording, but I'd like to have a larger community input on that. Also, I remember reading that 235 was from the first night alone, and that the arrests continued after that. Balakian says that the 235 were "initially arrested". Kevorkian states: "the authorities arrested approximately 200 persons in this first round up." We also know for certain that Krikor Zohrab and Serengulyan were arrested in May. However, we know that those two were a special case. But were those the only two exceptions up until the month of May? We would have to dig deeper into it to find out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then let's just get rid of it, the it being "and sent to their deaths". And thus get rid of the jarring row of 10 references. This lead content is there to explain why April 24; content about how many of the April 24 235 died or survived is not required to explain April 24. It is not appropriate to detail in the lead who was arrested later (that sort of minor content is for the main body of the article). Content detailing the fates of the April 24 deportees can be dealt with in the appropriate section of the body of the article, where the ambiguities in the sources can be better explored. But if this 10 sources "and sent to their deaths" statement remains in the lead it will require additional wording to indicate that other sources differ and indicate they were definitely not all "sent to their deaths" - it will look and read messy, but it will be accurate according to what the various sources say. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * insisted that those references be removed per this edit-summary . I know that he provided them only so that we can have a database on the article itself so we can verify them. So thank you Dr.K. for providing them. At any rate, I'm sure we can all agree that the current wording is a suitable compromise. I also strongly suggest that before we make any edits on the article itself, we should discuss it here first. This article receives enough mainspace wear and tear already. Also, can we please have this section header changed? Frankly, I'm really uneasy about writing under a section called "Old Lies". It makes it appear that those who support one side as opposed to another would be "lying". The section header should be written in such a way where all sides of the debate would be equally respected and welcomed, regardless of whether you find their opinions correct or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't support the "most were murdered" wording because it is not supported by the actual data given in some sources and because it is not content that is needed in the lead to explain "why April 24th?". I think it should either be removed, or wording added to indicate that about 1/3rd are known to have been murdered. Or use the "only around 80 are known to have survived" wording - I don't think this wording will be confusing to readers. As for the "Old Lies", sources that unequivocally state (such as in these quotes from some of the sources cited by Dr K) things like "They were deported to Anatolia where they were put to death" or "rounded up approximately 250 prominent Armenian intellectuals, and exterminated them" are peddling blatant falsehoods, and I believe they are knowingly lying, lying for propaganda effect. These falsehoods and other ones have been around for decades, and they do no good except to Turkish genocide denialists who can write articles exposing them (they are never even hard to detect lies) and thus cast dispersions on the truthfulness of AG sources in general. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Portrayal in the media
Would editors like to give their opinion about what should be in this section of the article and what its purpose is. Much of the present content seems unimportant, minor films or trivial mentions of the AG in books. It appears to be little more than a list of every book or film or musical creation that is based on or has mentioned or alluded to the genocide. There is no content there from sources about why such and such a film or book or whatever is important. I suggest that unless a portrayal or mention is written about in a third party source, and that the source indicates the portrayal is a significant contribution to the subject, it should not be there. I am asking this after rereading the chapter titled "Armenian literary Responses to the Genocide" by Rubina Peroomian in "The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics". There seems to be much content from it that could be included in this section if it were reworked. I suggest that the section title be changed to something like "Artistic responses to the Genocide" and that the content should be based on what sources have written about artistic responses rather than just a list of examples of artistic responses. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Section needs to be improved and more appropriately integrated
Many Armenians were massacred in neighboring Iran (Salmas, Khoy, etc) during the genocide. Why is this put in a section down pretty far below? Shouldn't this be integrated into the main sections about the killings? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, probably because it does not fit with the Armenian dogma that the genocide started on 24 April 1915. In reality the genocide started in January 1915 inside Persia with the massacres you mentioned, then spread westward into the areas of the Ottoman Empire immediately bordering Persia, then arrived in Van. All this happened before April 24th. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and opinion. I don't know whether it has anything to do with any "dogma" (though obviously if everyone cites a specific date, its hard for the massess trying to deviate from it, no matter how "right" it might be), but its brings down the quality content of this article. Information regarding the massacres there by the Turks should not be omitted, for they were many in number, and it shouldnt be put in some subsection far below as it is currently. Perhaps the addition of Qajar Persia in the infobox with some references droppped after it that state "by Ottoman troops". Something alike the Assyrian Genocide page. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Why is the location given as just "Ottoman Empire" when the genocide also spread into Iran and into the Russian Empire? (If I were to give an answer it would be along the same lines as my earlier reply.) I'm going to add these two, following the example of Assyrian Genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources added to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V
For the record these are the expert sources added to the article to support the deportation and systematic annihilation of the Armenian leaders and intellectuals per WP:RS and WP:V. I also added relevant quotes to facilitate verification. Dr.  K.  06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Please see also Ugur Ungor

2. 3. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Please see also Steven L. Jacobs who is a member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

8.

9.


 * Yes, they look to me as good sources, and they do support the statement, as clear from quotations. Hence my edit. I realize that the exact number of people who died during this particular episode(s) is difficult to identify, so that a more vague statement (something like "many died" or "most of them died" - that is what sources actually tell) would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments and your edit to the article.  Dr.   K.  16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have put "the majority", though even that is unsupported by the evidence presented in specialist sources as opposed to simplified statements made in the very general sources cited by Dr K. However, "the majority" is probably a true assessment given that most of those with unknown fates had those unknown fates because they did not survive. At least 81 individuals from the April 24 1915 arrests are known to have survived (i.e., about 1/3rd of the total). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I prefer "the majority of whom were eventually murdered." I've always found that the "with" construction is a bit vague--it carries no logical weight but suggests it. Wiktionary has "Used to indicate simultaneous happening, or immediate succession or consequence" listed fourth, sure, but "possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment" (citing another dictionary) is a more primary meaning these days--and that's kind of weak, in this context. It's not unlike the use of "also" every time an editor inserts another factoid in the biography of some trivial person. Anyway, carry on. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you . For the record, this formulation was mine which was then reverted with edit summary rewording some bad English. I am glad that my edit survived and was validated by other wiki editors, including yourself. As far as any potential trolling in the reverting edit-summary, I will AGF it was not. Dr.   K.  22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked about this issue here. The opinion there is that "whom" seems the best, so I will accept that. Are there objections to removing the "rounded up" part as suggested by the respondents? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * At that board, I think is right. Rounded up has a different overtone than arrested. Such terminology has been consistently used during the Holocaust and etc. Also, the sources use that terminology so it shouldn't really be a problem. Ideally, I'd like the sentence to be shortened too, but we shouldn't sacrifice phrases and words that clarify the event merely for the sake shortening things. But if we were to drop a word in that sentence, it would be "arrested". After all, these are innocent human beings were are talking about here. I wouldn't want to provide the readers even an inkling of a thought that would make it appear otherwise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As an alternative if a word were to be dropped, I'd also support the removal of arrested (and keeping "rounded up") in order to shorten the text and remove the comma issue that was mentioned in the reference desk discussion. Arrested would imply it was part of a genuine judicial process - whether it was or not I'm not clear. Although those killed were never convicted of anything, in most judicial systems you can be arrested without being charged, and everyone who is arrested is still innocent until convicted even if charged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140124204800/http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-let-me-denounce-genocide-from-the-dock-420011.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-let-me-denounce-genocide-from-the-dock-420011.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016
2602:304:B0AF:6969:958F:89FA:2F3C:BC3B (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Please baby let me edit
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Yazidi genocide
I would like to see the genocide of Yazidi people also mentioned in the article, in addition to that of Greeks and Assyrians. Some sources: The Unknown Turkish Genocide Of Kurdish Yezidis, Khanna Omarkhali mentions this in the foreword to her dissertation (p. 18). More and better sources surely can be found. This article (also in Russian) is also available. --Dorpater (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Greek and Assyrian comparisons have sources for those comparisons. You are not presenting suitable sources that contain a similar comparison for Yezidi (that webpage is not suitable, nor I think is a dissertation). However, I think that even if sources were found it would be a fringe opinion given that there is not a Wikipedia article on the subject of this alleged genocide. For my part, while they have certainly been subjected to sustained persecution, especially before WW1, and I know that Yazidi were caught up in the Armenian genocide when Ottoman forces invaded Russian Armenia, with many fleeing the advancing Turks in the same way and for the same reasons as Armenian civilians did, I don't know of events that are on a scale that would sustain the label "genocide". Some of the Yazidi population/victim figures in the ekurd webpage seem pure fantasy, btw. "Van region -- 100,000 innocent victims; Moush region -- over 60,000 victims" - these are just laughable claims. Take two zeros off the end and they might be credible. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Returning to "A notice concerning these pictures"
In earlier posts (see archives 22 and 23) I raised objections to a number of the images used in this article. Other editors have also raised questions about them. I propose going through each problematic image, presenting my reasons for their removal. Any images I find that are in breach of copyright I will go ahead and delete without discussion, though I will mention that I have deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleting as being in breach of copyright - the photograph titled "Armenian child refugees". This photograph was taken by Vartan Derounian. It is published in the 1986 book "The Armenian Refugee Camp in Aleppo" by Robert Jebejain. Jebejain writes that Derounian "left Aleppo" in 1947. So, even if Derounian died in 1948 this photograph is still under copyright and should not be on Wikipedia or Commons. It has also been given a deceptive file name - the photo was taken in Aleppo in the 1920s, not 1915. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since that photograph was taken (or created, if you want to use more legal terms) in Aleppo in the 1920s, I'd assume that it will fall under PD-Syria per Photographs or works of fine arts or works of plastic arts: created prior to 1994. An example of the use of this tag in a similar circumstance can be found here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would that not be only if it can be proven that it was first published in Syria. I am citing the Jebejian book as a reference for when Derounian was alive, not as a statement that this photo was first published in this book (there is no indication in the book to support such a claim - nor is it likely, given the time difference). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But the book was published in Aleppo, Syria in 1986, so there shouldn't be a problem regarding its publication either. But it's not even about the publication that's important. Syrian copyright laws don't need it to be published, only created. So what's crucial is when and where the photograph was taken. As indicated by Jebejian's book, this photograph was taken in the Kilikian school in Maidan in 1940, or in other words, the photographs were created in Syria before 1994. So it's definitely PD. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that it meant place of first publication, rather than initial creation. The pd template tag seems to stress date of publication rather than creation . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Syria reserves rights for the creator rather than the publisher. I think the Wikimedia commons tag is much more reliable and updated. So see, for example, the Syria PD tag here: . This is indeed a stark contrast with the USA which always favors the publisher and its date of publication. However, whatever is PD outside of USA can be considered PD under certain specifications which seems valid in this case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the copyright issue regarding the use of the photo is settled, I'm OK with the photo being reinserted, though its caption (like many of the captions) needs improving. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any caption you'd recommend? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the book it is in, which gives the date it was taken as well as more detail about its circumstances. But I've forgotten where I've put the book! If you go ahead and reinsert the image I'll add a fuller/better caption when I relocate the book. As for the rest of the images - I think it would be better to have them placed in some chronological order, perhaps as "early phases", "later phases" and "aftermath" or something along those lines. But at the moment the extreme vagueness of many of the captions precludes doing this for many of the images. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I know when and where the photograph was taken. It was taken in the Kilikian school in Maidan in 1940 according to Jebejian's book. But I feel the photograph may not be too relevant to the Armenian Genocide itself, since it was taken more than two decades after the actual events. We cannot even ascertain as to whether these orphans are actually orphans of the AG. That'll be OR on our part. So I say it's best we refrain from reinserting the photograph for now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Tents in Aleppo" - is a meaningless photo in a tiny resolution. There is no indication that its subject that it has anything to do with the Armenian Genocide.

"Armenian deportees in Malatya who were eventually massacred" - has a ludicrous caption. The buildings depicted are clearly Russian Tsarist-era structures, probably at Alexandropol, Yerevan or Etchmiadzin, and the people depicted, especially the men, are wearing clothing worn in the Russian empire. The fact that it is identified as being "Malatya" in a US newspaper does not make it true - US journalism was notoriously loose with facts and images and there is no reason we should blindly reproduce obvious falsehoods. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Étienne Dolet for correcting the caption. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)



I think have seen this in a 1900s newspaper article, so it cannot be from 1915 or after. Will update this when I relocate the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It appeared in the French magazine "Numero" from 1904. Has the headline "Les Nouveaux Massacres d'Armenie". The article details an August 1904 encounter between some Armenian Fedayeen (though the article does not call them such, and the wording suggests mostly amateurish wanabe-fedayeen) from Oltu and Ottoman troops, in which the Armenians were massacred. So it is not a genocide photo at all. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The source does not suggest that Armenian Genocide was the reason for coining term Genocide
The phrase from 3rd paragraph" "Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation to coin the word genocide in 1943" seems to be inaccurate. The source given, while acknowledges that Armenina genocide influenced Lemkin, also states explicitly that "In 1944, Lemkin wrote a book about the Nazis. In it, he combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing: Genocide. Lemkin had named the crime he spent a lifetime trying to prevent. " which I believe clearly suggests that it was holocaust that was the reason for coining the term "genocide". Moreover the article pertaining to the word itself is stating that the reason for coining the term was holocaust. I do not posses the book mentioned and as such can't make the judgement however one of the two articles is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.207.172 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source says Lemkin's "bold plan" proposal to "punish -- and prevent -- racial mass murder" dates from 1933 (i.e. from before the Jewish Holocaust) and that it was a response to the question of how to punish the perpetrators of events like the Armenian genocide, a question Lemkin had been asking himself as a direct result of what we now call the Armenian Genocide. The term genocide was coined for that purpose: "He revived his 1933 proposal and set his sights on the fledgling United Nations. He hoped this new world body, born out of the ashes of World War II, could create and enforce an international law against genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos to add
this image of crucified armenian girls http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/children/07r.jpg from this page should be added http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_6.php
 * It is a still from a Hollywood film, as the genocide-museum.am article indicates. Might be usable in the Portrayal in the media section or Armenian Genocide in culture article, but there should be higher resolution versions of the same image available. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209091255/http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257 to http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=257

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ No working archived captures to be found at Wayback or Web Cite. Marked for 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)