Talk:Battle of Van

npov
I don't know enough history to weigh in, but this article definitely needs to be looked at by someone more knowledgable. This page has been edited to now contain some extreme text referring to genocide. The language is far different than what the article used to contain. I'm sure it needs to be toned down, but I'm not sure where to get started. lowercase 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Immediate Attention Tag R--OttomanReference 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)emoved
This article appears to be under control now, with POV police on patrol. Have removed tag. Buckshot06 08:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the Van resistance article, and could not find any source for a so-called "Battle of Van" - do an internet search, see what happens. Battle of Van usually refers to the self defense battle of Van. This needs to be merged into van resistance. Hetoum I 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of this merge. Battle of Van does not exist... it's just another name for Van Resistance. - Fedayee 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The military activity covered in this article is not the continuation of the initial resistance developed by the Armenian militia during April of the same year. The story of the "local resistance" is explained under Van Resistance. The Battle of Van is the story of the Ottoman Army (which is by the way a different branch of the second army, can not be claimed a continued conflict) being faced with the Russian detachment units of Armenian volunteer units. Russians build a small garrison in the city during the period May-August. Yes! the city is same city and there were some local Armenian forces sided with Russians. Besides these points; Battle of Van is classified as an armed conflict between Ottoman Empire and Russia, which is strongly different than the sides of the Van resistance. I strongly object this proposal as the proposal do not show any serious consideration on the sides and forces in these conflicts. This proposal is a personal view of an author on how the history should be written; as s/he accepts the historical terminology assigned (Battle of Van), but rejects the article and claim that it should be part of a "local resistance". Thanks. --OttomanReference 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no battle of Van, I researched topic in university library. Only Armenian resistance occured. This article doesnt even cite its "so-called sources." Please stop writing fairly tales without citations!Hetoum I 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not want to claim you are a lier, but the military activities of August-September is a fact, which you do not deny. You also tell van resistance is on April-May. How someone can argue with you, if you deny the basic differences. I'm speechless. This is just plenty wrong, and you wage a war, on the topics of history, like Armenians waged a war during WWI to Ottoman Empire. --OttomanReference 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can claim I am a liar all you want. Fact is, at the end of the day, I researched topic, found no so called "battle of van" or local armenian garrison that was destroyed by ottomans. All Armenians evacuated, and no term is known for this 1 month period of ottoman reoccupation. this place is not a place for OttomanReferences OriginalResearch. I cite sources, you don't, this is why I am credible and you are not! 72.79.62.219 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you come and began to vandalize articles (which end up with your original user was being banned); this conflict is already discussed, with other Armenians, who had access to Armenian sources. They also say that the events of this article is in their sources, and funny thing is that you do not reject the events. However the difference between you and others is that you want to shape everything in your own view. If they do not fit your ideology, you ignore valid arguments brought, (read the first response). There is no way; a person like you can be negotiated and proven that some concepts of your idealogy (I guess it is a religion for you) is wrong. You do not even read your own responses: "You use the word "garrison" which is a military term, but you deny the word "battle" to the event that destroyed the "garrison"". Also you accept that after van resistance (which is a local movement) within the time (three months) Ottoman Armenians build a  garrison. Existence of garrison is the proof that this is not a local resistance anymore but an organized military activity, which comes the name "battle". From ottoman perspective, the forces inwolved in both conflicts are different, which makes them different military events. You are not here with a good faith and If I continue with your argumentation; I can claim "Armenian genocide" did not happened because the events written in that article do not have the name genocide in Turkish history books. That is what you are doing but from Armenian side, plain strait. --OttomanReference 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not even try to whine your way around the victim card as you are attacking someone.

Before you come and began to vandalize articles (which end up with your original user was being banned); this conflict is already discussed, with other Armenians, who had access to Armenian sources. '''Yes, they came to opposite conclusions as you, found you doing original research, and making things up, that is why one of your articles - April 24 circular - is down the drain, and more will follow. And you are stupid to think I was banned. Before you make stupid comments like that you should realize that my old page would have been la belled with a vandal tag, and i would not use the same name and interlink accounts because same admin would ban me in minutes. I got locked out because username was same as password!'''

They also say that the events of this article is in their sources, and funny thing is that you do not reject the events. However the difference between you and others is that you want to shape everything in your own view. If they do not fit your ideology, you ignore valid arguments brought, (read the first response). There is no way; a person like you can be negotiated and proven that some concepts of your idealogy (I guess it is a religion for you) is wrong.

Stop blabbering nonsense, and stick on topic.

You do not even read your own responses: "You use the word "garrison" which is a military term, but you deny the word "battle" to the event that destroyed the "garrison"". '''THERE! You lie again as you attack me and call me a liar. I just said above I found no evidence of some fairy nonexistent garrison.'''

Also you accept that after van resistance (which is a local movement) within the time (three months) Ottoman Armenians build a garrison. Existence of garrison is the proof that this is not a local resistance anymore but an organized military activity, which comes the name "battle". From ottoman perspective, the forces inwolved in both conflicts are different, which makes them different military events. '''What Are you talking about? What military activities, stop pulling things from thin Air! Russians moved in and took control, there is not this fair independence you speak of.'''

You are not here with a good faith and If I continue with your argumentation; I can claim "Armenian genocide" did not happened because the events written in that article do not have the name genocide in Turkish history books. That is what you are doing but from Armenian side, plain strait. People with better mastery of English have come and tried and gotten thrown out - and you above comments reveal your bad faith not mine - including your selective interpretation and manipulation of cats. Hetoum I 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not get mad! Be calm! References of your sentences are coming from your edits in Van resistance. Just stop and think. Lets say that there is no "Russian Army" in the Van during August 19 (which their existence are proven by pictures :-) ) . Armenians who fought during the Van resistance (in April) just vanished to thin air after three months of having the control of the city?? Your claim: There was no resistance to the incoming ottoman units (in August), even though they build tranches and defense lines (these are from your edits also). In August, the Ottoman Units did not face any resistance (no battle, no resistance) and recapture the city for nearly a month. These inaccuracies are the problem of your argument. If you have a little bit respect to the truth, you could have recognize these problems of your argumentation. Armenian militia is one side of the story. You also claim that Russian army captures a very important city (city at the cross roads) and leaves it defenseless. If it is not important why did they returned to recapture the city with a bigger force one more time? All the pieces of this battle is originating from your edits. I can see you do want to tell the achievements of the great Armenian military force, and this article does not fit to that picture. But please be akilli and have a nice day. Thanks. --OttomanReference 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yea yea, stop saying what you said in your last post and going through this stupid maze of circular logic. I am still citing source you are not. you are still doing original research, and I am not. My sources are credible and verifiable via the internet. are yours? so before you post your next post, seriously try not to repeat yourself.72.79.62.219 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These are valid questions. If you ask these questions to yourself without injecting the biases of your ideology, you might learn something about the history of the period. Think this way, don't you think myths are unreal and an Armenian history (which you depict) full of glory (Van resistance) or total destruction (Armenian genocide) is a myth. The truth may be in between. If you can be objective to yourself of course. OttomanReference 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am happy you have your own ideas and perceptions of how things happened. You are wrong, but you are welcome to your opinion. Unfortunately, wiki is not a place for your thoughts under the NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH rule. If you can in fact support your perceptions with credible material, you are welcome to. So, until then, cheers.Hetoum I 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The requested citation is presented. As this side of the problem is fulfilled, hope you would give some time to the arguments presented to you. Thnks. --OttomanReference 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well according to your sources Ottomans said the city was taken in a battle. Mint, Ottomans propganda was known for its lies while slaughtering Armenians. Where in your source does it call this the battle of Van? Please cite your source.Hetoum I 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Retake of city is not a battle (source openly separates the forces Russian and Armenian) than what it is? Is there a way to make you accept that you are biased in your judgment. --OttomanReference 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is it, I have given you months, but you continue to lie and include false sources. I am reverting back to my version: see talk for Van resistance where this user provided dubious reference. All you references are for Van resistance, and nothing even for the "battle of van" - and just above you admitted retake of the city was not a battle :) I see no point in this discussion.Hetoum I 00:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That response says: How could Ottoman Army retake a city from Armenian and Russian armed soldiers and it is not a battle. If It is not a battle than you tell us what it is? When you begin to delete citations, the level of conversation drop to zero, thanks to your continuous rejections. I wonder what terminology you will come up with the 1,200 Armenian who were captured during the "whatever you want to call."  Do you want to call it siege? OttomanReference 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I do not know how could you come up the idea that I claimed there was no armed conflict with these changes!!! Just check the given citations. the words "forced to abandon" I guess if we assume your position Ottoman army used the flowers as a source of "force". --OttomanReference 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, evacuation, as cited by my sources. Please do not conduct original research and bring in your personal interpretation of events considered to be original research here, it is a violation of the rules. And, no one removed citations unless they were dubious, misleading, or lies. I personally removed nothing on this page. Hetoum I 01:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum I claims that there was no armed conflicts
O.K. I brought two "western sources" regarding the Ottoman Army not just the city but the retake of the region. Where is you citation that claims Ottoman Army did have the control of the region and city for nearly a month beginning with August. Not biased sources. I'm not using Turkish books. Please stop this "charade" if you do not have a source that claims Armenians have the control of the city and the region. --OttomanReference 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no Armed conflict on this front. City was abandoned after 1 month of russian occupation, and ottomans abandoned it after one month too. Change of hands of city depended on fighting in the north. No sources name any battle of van.

If you cannot contribute in proper english grammar I suggest you practice first and try to understand my comments.

Since you do not seem to understand wiki rules and my above comment, I will repost it:

Please do not conduct original research and bring in your personal interpretation of events considered to be original research here, it is a violation of the rules. And, no one removed citations unless they were dubious, misleading, or lies. I personally removed nothing on this page.

Hetoum I 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How this is an original research When I have you two "earlier publications?" (1) David Nicolle (2) Spencer C. Tucker. Do you really know what you are talking about? --OttomanReference 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is your citation that claims "There was no Armed conflict on this front." I gave you one that claims the region was forced to be emptied, do not talk from your POV. --OttomanReference 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because sources to not call it a battle, they say sources changed hands. Vartan already caught you lying on one quote from these authors on Van resistance page.Hetoum I 05:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm jut leveling with you: 1) You claim "they say sources changed hands." What kind of change are these source claim. Did armed Armenian militia waited in front of the castle and give the golden key of the town to Kerim pasha? Or did they blocked every mountain passage, where they can shoot from higher location? 2) You say: "not call it a battle" This is like Armenian Genocide, Turks claim there was no genocide how can they come up with a document that it did not happen. Armenians say millions of my people died, how can not be a genocide? Ottomans say low level armed conflicts killed my soldiers, how could not this be a battle? Armenian militia performs an insurgency operation, same as the Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003%E2%80%93present getting support from a neighboring country armed insurgents claims a region and pushes the security forces out of the region. Ottoman Army performs an counter offense to recapture and faces three distinct forces. Russian Cossacks army pull back and advises the the people in the region to come with them. Russian Armenian detachment units and Armenian militia of ARF organized a fight using the chete methods (terminolgy of the 1915) techniques. Current terminology says "irregular fighting methods, insurgency" You play with words. You do not like the word battle, but this is your personal problem. 3) There is no citation that communicates your POV. You need to bring your citations. 4) Your glorious books do not tell this part of the conflict (daa not a big achievement), but you should be able to have an open mind and do some reading beyond your propaganda boundaries. Do your homework and bring your citations or drop this Resistance, we are not living in WWI. --OttomanReference 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot bring citations for something that did not happen. After succesful self-defense, residents of Van followed harrowing Russian retreat north. There were no Armenians left. There was no guerrilla war or rearguard. Your sources say no such thing either. Vartan already caught you lying, please stop now. If you can be credible and honest, then we can speak. Hetoum I 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to prove your position. There are two western citations (not using the Turkish) that claims the region was retaken from Armenians by "force." You tell us how it is taken if it is not by force using your citations. Thanks. OttomanReference 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nowhere that your citation mention force. They also do not mention a battle. Since you do not seem capable of stopping edit warring and lying I am simply going to report you. Hetoum I 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm open minded. Bring your citations and prove your point. Besides your own words, you do not have any credible information. Instead of attacking me, teach me. Tell me that the armed people who defeated the Ottoman Army in Van Resistance, leaves this important region to Ottoman forces with no resistance, "using your references". It is hard to believe to your words when there is two western citations claims otherwise. It is so easy to solve this problem. Bring your sources. You do not need to attack my personality, just bring your sources. --OttomanReference 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how am I to find citations saying " THERE WAS NO BATTLE" when there wasn't. No source you provided cited a battle. Merely that the town changed hands. That it was a result of a battle is your personal interpretation and considered to be original research. This cannot happen. If you can find an article specifically naming "Battle of Van" and details of such battle will there be a shred of credibility. I also suggest you seriously try to stop edit warring and getting blocked.Hetoum I 06:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)