Talk:Casualties of the Armenian genocide/Archive 1

Cite
Hello, The cited reference J. Pomiankowski 1969 seems to be a reprint, since first edition was in 1928, Vienna. I would suggest to add this information. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a reprint. I will add it. Thanks. Fadix 17:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs to move
This page needs to move to something like "Ottoman Casualties during WW1" or similar.

Otherwise it can not be NPOV.

Refer to page history to see why this is needed:
 * 1) (cur) (last) 16:58, 8 October 2005 Fadix (Partial revert, this entry is about Ottoman Armenian casulties.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 10:24, 4 October 2005 203.19.70.59

This was used to take out the following text: "It should also be noted that many of the non-Armenian, mostly Kurdish population has also been massacred by Armenian militias during this period. This fact is widely accepted but rarely mentioned in the context of discussions."


 * How many non-Turkish authors can you name, beside those that are classified as deniers in Genocide bibliography works(which I already gave examples of), that brings up such a thing in the context of the Ottoman Armenian casulaties. I don't even know of a Kurdish author that wrote about it, while I know of Kurdish authors that wrote about Kurdish massacres perpetrated by Turks after World War I, from the arrival of Kemalism and under the Kemalistic regime.


 * This article exist, because the ussue of Armenian losses is covered in hundreds of books, including Jemal memoires, Bayur Encyclopedic volumes, Turkish early military works, etc. There are works covering alone Armenian population and losses. This subject is widely discussed in academic levels.


 * You will find more books covering the Armenian casulties, than you will find covering the entire Ottoman casulties coverings reunited. Fad (ix) 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * @How many non-Turkish authors can you name [...] that brings up such a thing in the context of the Ottoman Armenian casulaties: Hello Fadix, I agree with you that this is not the place to discuss the old roots of enmity of Kurdish and Armenian people. But your answer is misleading in a certain way. Of course you know that reducing this special article to Armenian casualties it effects the suggestion - mainly for laymen - that Armenians generally were exclusively victims. Most of popular scientific reports mention both Kurdish (and Turkish) and Armenian atrocities in this context. For example your own reference, Pomiankowski 1928, p. 159: "Trotz dieser Warnungen zögerten jedoch die Armenier nicht, eine direkte gegen die Türkei gerichtete feindliche Haltung einzunehmen und sogar gegen türkische Truppen aggressiv vorzugehen. Noch vor Beginn der Feindseligkeiten [before WW] flohen zahlreiche Soldaten und Offiziere armenischer Nationalität mit einem armenischen Abgeordneten an der Spitze über die Grenze. Diese Leute ließen sich dann in die armenische Freiwilligenformationen [Armenien volunteers] einstellen, welche an der Seite der Russen die Grenzen überschritten und auf türkischem Territorium unter der mohammedanischen Bevölkerung auf barbarische Weise wüteten. [who raged on Turkish territory in barbarian manner against the Muslim population]". It should be emphased clearly that it is justified to mention Armenian aggressions as well as Turkish or Kurdish ones in the context of Armenian genocide. Even if this special article (Ottoman Armenian casualties) actually is not the adequate place to implement this. Greetings -- Anglo-Araneophilus 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just adding to my answer, I have no problem creating an article about the other losses. I even left such a hyperlink in the eventuality that such an article is created. Fad (ix) 20:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not the article I criticised but the way of discussion of 30 November 2005. I gave all my comments now. Greetings, Anglo-Araneophilus 11:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My answer
I hope you have no peoblem that I answer on a seperate place.

I beg to disagree; even his accounts separate the two. First of, this article is attached to the Armenian genocide article, which alone justify the way it is. But let see for the sake of objectivity, what he says else, which shows that he clearly separate both. The part you provide treats about something that is well known but yet unrelated. It describes the situation in which, before the hostilities started, some crossed the borders,(and I think you should have posted the entire translation, not just those in bold, since the interpretation would have been slightly different) and that there was an Armenian formation on the border. The reports of Armenians lunched an attack before the said hostilities, is not a German one, it is a known one, a general dispatch prepared to justify the evacuation of the Armenians from the Eastern zone which was submitted to the Germans by the Ottoman authorities. This information was identified as being fabricated, by Ahmed Refik in his work, which in his opinion was to justify the measures taken against the Armenians. Nansen himself identity such a report which originated from the Turkish embassy in Berlin (Armenia and the Near East, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, 1928, p.302). James Morgan Read, in his book "Atrocity Propaganda 1914-1919, Yale University Press (1941)" writes: "The Turkish ally also furnished German papers with stories of Armenian cruelty to offset the unfavorable publicity directed at the Central Powers for their alliance with the "terrible Turk", the perpetrator of the "Armenian massacres." The Armenians were accused of helping the Russians burn the Moslem quarters in the province of Van, rape the women and girls, kill all the men."


 * Sorry - I really did not know this point. I thought, Armenian and Turkish (and Kurdish) aggressions were in closer chronological relation. I am actually not skilled to contribute to this subject matter. Your following comments however seem to have no closer relation to my remarks. The inimitability of Armenian Genocide's dimensions is indisputable anyway. Probably the seperation of Armenian and Turkish (and Kurdish) aggressions is justifiable even in popular scientific accounts as it is in scientific accounts anyway. I hope, you do not misinterpret my intentions in this affair. Keep on being disputatious (in sense of German: streitbar), Best wishes -- Anglo-Araneophilus 13:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Returning back to Pomiankowski, since I believe I am looking like as if I am diverting the subject. Let quote from the same book(Pomiankowski 1928), from the same page (159): “Compared to the Greeks, the Armenians were treated much more horribly by the Young Turks as they had no immediate backer outside Turkey, and the Turkish government did not have to fear a change in the war-political situation.”

On the next page (160)

“The Van uprising certainly was an act of desperation. The local Armenians realized that general massacres against the Armenians had started and they would be the next target.”

Also, on the same page: “The implementation of this barbaric order in fact amounted to annihilation of the Armenian nation in Asia Minor…on the road the men were all together murdered, attractive women were led into Turkish harems and the rest was wiped out through deprivations and deliberation, and only pitiful remnants arrived at the Euphrates river only to perish there in the shortest period of time.”

The page which follows (161), he writes something which completely separate both.

“In the course of summer 1915 the Turkish government with inexorable consequences brought its bloody task of the extermination of an entire nation to an end.”

And then, the next page(162) he writes that the Ottoman attributed the decay of the Ottoman Empire “to the overabundant humanity of the earlier Sultans who either ought to have had the conquered people forcibly embrace Islam, or ought to have exterminated them. …In this sense there is no doubt that the Young Turk government already before the war had decided to utilize the next suitable opportunity for rectifying this mistake at least in part… It is also very probable that this consideration, i.e., intent, had a very important influence upon the decision of the Ottoman government regarding joining the Central Powers and upon the determination of the exact time of their intervening in the war.”

And the page after that one, which is, p. 163, he writes: “The secret decisions of the Young Turk Committee determined the manner with which the national-Turkish and fundamental questions involving the overall policies of the empire were solved.”

Next page (164)

“Extermination of a Christian nation offended the sentiments and moral principles of humanity certainly to a much higher degree than the unlimited submarine warfare.”

Next page (165)

“The gruesome destruction of the Armenian nation in Asia Minor by the Ittihadist government was an act which was barbaric and which to the highest degree outraged all human sense.” Now, let see what he wrote on the page previous to which you have quoted from. (about the eventuality, and how a decision was taken before anything having happened, which again, separate both)

On page 158, he writes: “The Young Turk barbarians, who didn’t recoil before any crime, recognized in the destruction of the Armenian people the means to pre-empt forever such an eventuality.”

On the same page: “The Turkish government not only resorted to all the means in order to protect itself against dangerous internal tendencies but also in order to take as much advantage as possible of the vulnerable situation of its Christian citizens.”

Now about his estimates, the reason why I wrote it that way, is because on page 13, he writes this: “Since the year 1909 up to the end of the war…I had ample opportunity to get to know the land and people of Turkey. During the war, however, I was from start to finish eyewitness of practically all the decisions and activities of the Turkish governments…”

But, you are probably right on this one, maybe my version of quoting his estimate is POV. Change it; I have no problem with that.

Regards Fad (ix) 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Vice Marashal thing, I've read both qualification of him. Could it be that he became one, and then the later or something such? Fad (ix) 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not very knowledgeable about these military ranks. But I guess, Vice Marshal and Lieutenant General could be assumed to be equivalent. Feldmarschalleutnant seems to be a Austrian rank, similar to German rank Generalleutnant. But again, in my opinion his function as Military Attaché in Constantinople has to be emphased mainly. -- Greetings Anglo-Araneophilus 12:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Pomiankowski 1928 did not estimate Armenian losses
Hello Fadix, please check this: Pomiankowski 1928, p. 160 gives no own estimation. He mentions an uncertain and unassigned assumption carefully using subjunctive. Literally: "Ungefähr eine Million Menschen sollen auf diese Weise zugrunde gegangen sein und da die Zahl sämtlicher Armenier auf etwa 1200000 geschätzt wurde, konnte Talaat Ende 1915 mit Recht behaupten, daß die armenische Frage in der Türkei gelöst sei und nicht mehr existiere!" It could be considered therefore to adapt the text passage The Austrian Vice Marashal Pomiankowski estimated the Armenian losses to be about a million in adequate manner. Please check also, if the military rank of Feldmarschalleutnant Pomiankowski should be moved to Lieutenant General instead of Vice Marshal or "Vice Marashal" as you say. Cf. de:Generalleutnant, de:Feldmarschalleutnant, and Lieutenant General. More important seems to be his position as Military Attaché anyway. Greetings -- Anglo-Araneophilus 01:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * @"Now about his estimates, the reason why I wrote it that way, is because on page 13, he writes this: “Since the year 1909 up to the end of the war…I had ample opportunity to get to know the land and people of Turkey. During the war, however, I was from start to finish eyewitness of practically all the decisions and activities of the Turkish governments…”": I do not object to the scientific relevance of his estimations. He does not dispute the general dimension of the date of 1000000 but even argues with it. My point is just: He does not give any own estimation, if the date of 1000000 is correct or not. And he does not cite his reference. So the way of citing "his estimation" in your article is not precise. -- Greetings, Anglo-Araneophilus 11:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. If you have any other critics, please bring them here also. Fad (ix) 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * @"Post your suggestions of changes" (sub User talk:Anglo-Araneophilus, Fad (ix) 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)): Thank you for paying attention to my remarks. But I am not able to contribute with (further) remarkable comments. -- Greetings, en:user:Anglo-Araneophilus 88.134.7.193 23:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * @Now about his estimates, the reason why I wrote it that way, is because on page 13, he writes this: “Since the year 1909 up to the end of the war…I had ample opportunity to get to know the land and people of Turkey. During the war, however, I was from start to finish eyewitness of practically all the decisions and activities of the Turkish governments…”": On page 161 Pomiankowski (1928) declares: "Die ganze Aktion gegen die Armenier wurde so geheim durchgeführt, daß die österreichisch-ungarische Botschaft, sowie die anderen fremden Vertretungen in Konstantinopel erst im Spätsommer 1915 etwas hiervon erfuhren, d. i. zu einer Zeit, als der größte Teil der Deportationen bereits erledigt war. Und auch damals kamen uns nur Gerüchte zu Ohren. Details, sowie die ganze schreckliche Wahrheit hörten wir erst nach und nach viel später." This shows, that the previous general declaration "Während des Krieges dagegen war ich vom Anfang bis zum Ende Augenzeuge fast aller Entschlüsse und Tätigkeiten der türkischen Regierung, sowie der in Konstantinopel akkreditierten Diplomaten und oft selbst ihr Mitarbeiter." does not include Armenian affairs. I don't want to start the discussion again, but only want to complete my reasoning with this single point. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

THe NPOV violation
The article covers the casualties of the Armenians, but the categories are missing. The article is directly linked to Armenian Genocide, and presents the numbers as direct proof (cause) of the state wide organized crime, begining from the first sentence. Without these categories, it is biased article. The article treats all the Armenians as civilian. It does not eliminate non-genocide casualties, or present these numbers so that readers can develop their own understanding. As the article is about Armenians, during World War One Armenians died in many fronts. The statistics for Democratic Republic of Armenia is missing. Without cowering these bases article is in a clear violation of NPOV. The author of the article should present his own mumbers for these categories, or give explanation why the presented numbers are biased. --OttomanReference 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is attached to the Armenian Genocide article, the change of cathegory or names has been done without consultation. It nowhere says that people were all citizens, there is no enough notability to start any article regarding the loss in Russian Armenia, this articles existance is justified by the notability of the subject, which is the losses of Ottoman Armenians and vicinities during what is called Armenian Genocide and what followed. You have already used plenty pf socks by trying to disturb the Armenian Genocide article in the past, if you think you will do the same here, I can say that you are dreeming in color. Since this article covers a specific subject, I don't see how any specifity could justify an NPOV tag. It is like claiming that the article about cats is too specific and only covers cats so we shall add a NPOV tag. Fad (ix) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of Threshing users (creating personal fights), you need to cover the problems in the article. I advise you to do some research and improve the article, instead of involving personal attacks. Reporting correct information is a respect to Armenians who lost their life, and opposite (what you are eliminating information) is very disturbing. Currently form of the article is not performing justice by putting everything into a single bucket. THANKS.--OttomanReference 22:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat AGAIN!!! This article is ABOUT the Ottoman Armenian casulties, this article has been renamed without consultation, WITHOUT votes, the title of this article(the new one) isen't even a representation of the article, since it covers way after WWI. The only reason this article exist is because there is scholarity work which abound and which treat specifically the loss of Ottoman Armenians. This article is NOT a place to dump irrelevant stuff, your edits are poor, and sorry to say worthless. The deportation is NOT to be equaled to the Tehcir law, since the evacuation is recorded since March 2, and even according to other sources even before, which precede months before the Tehcir. Second, Bayur is clearly presented in the article itself, you just dump it in another section, disgorganised and the addition isen'T even justified since he is ALREADY presented and FOR THE SAME REASONS AND FOR THE SAME QUOTES. Halacoglu doesn't fit there, there is already a section in the article to be expended which is about the other Turkish sources. But since other more notable Turkish scholars aren't even included in the article, it would take a hell of a twist to justify why Halacoglu who has published in the West a simple booklet has to be given this much space. Your famine section has nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians, and has nothing to do with the period covered. It is simply worthless, this has a place in the entry regarding the first Armenian republic and the conditions under which it was founded, it has nothing to do with an article regarding the Ottoman Armenian casulties. The same for the rest, the only part which has any relevency is the League of Nations figures of refugies, but THIS TOO is included in the article. The Sickness section is totally worthless, unless you have anything to present there, this has to go. Armed conflict section covers TransCaucasia and after the genocide, which again has nothing to do with the article, the article is about the Ottoman Armenian Casulties and not the conflicts in trancaucasia, I can too go on and change articles name to then dumping irrelevent stuff in it. While I have deleted irrelevency, you have deleted an entire section regarding Ottoman Armenian losses (the section regarding mccarthy) which was about what this article was supposed to be before you hijacked the way you did before. Given that you have a history of disturbing the integrity of articles and this by using different socks, I have all the rights to prevent this article to simply dissolve. As for the tag added, you have yet to justify it. Fad (ix) 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reporting the correct/full information is a respect to Armenians who lost their life. The article without the basic categories of Armenian casualties during World War I eliminates the information and leaves the numbers in the article without a context . If (ix) sees a missing part at the presented level; he is welcome to bring other sources to fill in the gaps. THANKS.--OttomanReference 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Armed conflicts; there was an Armenian Militia and Armenian volunteer units, which were OTTOMAN ARMENIANS and their TOTAL size was approaching to low 150,000 to high 200,000. There were significant Armenian casualties among them, which begins with 1914 during Armenian resistance. HOW one could justifies elimination of these people from this article (at least cite them), is beyond something I can argue. Also Democratic Republic of Armenia had a lot of Ottoman Armenians, some refugees turned to be Fedayee to protect the rest of their family. Thinking that their lives (at least cite them) were not as important by not including in this article, is beyond me!--OttomanReference 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are digging a whole to jump in it. I repeat again, since it seem you did not get it. Ottoman Armenian casulties is a notable subject wich is directly attached to the Armenian genocide article, this is enough notable to have its article, those are the losses of Ottoman Armenians during the genocide and what followed. You can not change articles subject to justify dumping worthless materials. As to your 150,000-200,000 figure, 150,000 relates to the entire Armenian war efforts, mostly Russian Armenians or Western Armenians conscription. And most of the effort was on the trancaucasian front which is pretty well documented. Throwing such claims isen't helping you at all. Fad (ix) 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is very disappointing for someone with Armenian background (if you are) does not care to report. Also repeatedly claim that the source of these numbers (context) has no value. Even only part of the story can be expressed. Your constant rejection of including the context, without deleting what you have already substituted, is a proof that you are doing this on purpose. This is more disturbing. Without the context, they are just numbers. I spend enough time with this nonsense. Thanks guys.--OttomanReference 03:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Isn't the unilateral creation of Armenian casualties during World War I a POV fork? Khoikhoi 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Armenians were living in three Empires in 1914. Ottoman, Russian and Persian. In 1918 (assuming genocide killed every Armenian in the Ottoman Empire) they were living as Democratic Republic of Armenia, Persia and in Armenian Diaspora (Russia, and other strates). I guess What happaned to Armenians beyond the Ottoman Empire could be a significant question. What do you say?OttomanReference 02:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is where you are mistaken, the losses of Armenians beyond the losses of Ottoman Armenians is wartime losses with some instances of war crimes, not much different than the heavy Muslim losses in the East, those could be treated all together, while the Ottoman Armenian losses is a subject in itself attached to one subject, which is the Armenian genocide. Fad (ix) 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, Khoikhoi. I am requesting its deletion. --TigranTheGreat 03:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just off the topic: Why the hell is this paging being moved so often?? It was Clevelander who moved it to "Armenian casualties during WW1" sometime ago, and now Tigran moved it back to "Ottoman Armenian casualties".. I really don't care one way or the other, but why is it bouncing around like a ping-pong ball? What is the dispute here? And I was also wondering the difference between "Ottoman Armenian casualties" and the "Armenian Genocide" articles. No joke, I am not being sarcastic or anything. I am just confused, is it because of a different timeframe? Baristarim 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Armenian Genocide" is about the event, while "Ottoman Armenian casualties" is about the number of the dead during the event. "Ottoman Armenian casualties" discusses a very important subset of what "Armenian casualties during WW1" would discuss (if it were not a POV fork that it is now). The dispute on a superficial surface (as framed by Ottoman Reference) is whether the Genocide casualties should be included within "the larger context" of WWI Arm. casualties (which would include soldiers). On a deeper level, the attempt to introduce "context" is an attempt to introduce the Turkish POV denialist position--i.e. that the Genocide victims were killed because "Armenians rebelled and attacked Turkey." Which is why we care.--TigranTheGreat 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When the problem becomes protection of an ideology, such as created between deniers and defenders, the truth begins to get lost between the cracks. May be in the future, people would really stop listening ideologies and seek for the truth. However, It does not matter if they will figure out that the truth is somewhere between deniers and defenders. The biggest crime is performed (the real genocide), not between 1915-1916, but today through the children of these mryters who denied denied them rightful recognition. Behind the rhetorics of TigranTheGreat and Fad the crack seems to get bigger. From a third party, I do not see anything that is substantial that the deniers are really going to loose, but is it same for the defenders? For sure, neither the deniers nor defenders can recognize what they are loosing with the blood raging in their veins. Thanks. --OttomanReference 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with deniers and defenders, you are unable to stick to the point. This article has been created because of the notability of the subject, it covers one specific topic, which is Ottoman Armenian casulties. It is as simple as that, as for rhetorics, as someone having the same rhetorics over again to justify the disruption of articles, it becomes hypocritical of you of using this word, afteral, we shall all remember your anti-Wikipedian way of working to get what you want in articles. Fad (ix) 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

between 1914 to 1923 during the Armenian Genocide
Ummm...I did some math, I used a calculator and everything. It turns out that 1914 and 1923 are not the years of AG, (which on the WIKI AG page it says 1915-1917). Go figure!

So, which is it? 1914-1923 or 1915-1917? Untill you decide, the POV is gone.--Oguz1 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

reverted and removed some unnecessary and repetition from the main. This article need to be neutralized.

Austrians did provide wide ranges.

Toynbee
Encyclopædia Britannica references the research made by Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office during World War I, who estimated a death toll of 600,000. Toynbee calculated that approximately 1,800,000 Armenians had lived in Anatolia prior to the war, and came to the conclusion that around 600,000 Armenians died or were massacred during deportation, possibly 600,000 more survived in exile, and another 600,000 either escaped or went into hiding. By independent calculation, Justin McCarthy has arrived at the same number of deaths, and many historians either cite Toynbee directly or provide similar estimates.

I've put this here, because it doesn't connect well with what is already in the article. I will be trying to incorporate the information, most of it seem redondant, but I'll try fixing this. I'll comment on the changes once I integrate it. Anatolmethanol 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I added from it what I thought as relevant, for the rest, like I said, they are either there, or in the cases of Britannica we should find a section on further estimates. Anatolmethanol 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no joke hundreds of estimates on the number of figures, Britannica being one exemple. As I have already mentioned, Britannica also uses between 600,000 to 1,5 million in another article, which is about what Encarta uses. Here you might find some quotes from different editions of Britannica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ottoman_Armenian_population. Like I have told you in the Armenian genocide article, Melson explains what represent Toynbee figures, as it is confirmed by the date it was submitted. Gilbert in his work also used it, for 1915, and add the 400,000 for the following years to come to the League of nations figure.

Regarding McCarthy being adding in the Turkish source. I think you should first understand the rational of why this was placed there before making accusations. Justin McCarthy provide the Ottoman archival records, the only reason why he was presented, while there are hundreds of other authors, was to provide his presentation of Ottoman records, when you move him out from that section, you take out the whole point of even including him a section all together in the article.

Let me explain why what the allies and neutral section meant. IT does not meant neutral sources, but more to do with neutral countries during the World War I. The united states untill 1917 was neutral. That was the point of including them there. Toynbee for exemple was a British source of the time, the King Crane etc., the League of Nations, all those were classified as allies or Neutral parties. It has nothing to do with scholars. This is why Justin McCarthy was not placed there. I thought it relevent to include Justin McCarthy because he provided the Ottoman figures officially in the west in peer reviewed publications. As for the date, this could be debated. Anatolmethanol 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the Turkish-Armenian conflict is still happening right now, but that has nothing to do with this article. VartanM 20:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the Turkish-Armenian military conflict, which ended in 1921 with the Treaty of Kars. Other than that, Turkey doesn't even recognize Armenia in terms of diplomatic relations, but gave 12 points to Armenia in the past two Eurovision song contests due to the large amount of Armenian workers (from Armenia proper) living clandestinely in Turkey. Flavius Belisarius 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have so far assumed good faith while you violated the 3RR rule and personally attacked me. I will ask you nicely one more time. Please stop the edit warring and the personal attacks assume good faith and discuss changes in the talkpage rather then edit summaries. VartanM 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it because I am writing the inconvenient truth?

Or is it because I am destroying an important chain of the Armenian propaganda machine, which aims to extend the events until 1923 in order to create a non-existent link with the present-day Republic of Turkey?

I can only assure you this: I am not leaving. Flavius Belisarius 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And the truth is on my side (see the Treaty of Kars). Vincit omnia veritas. Flavius Belisarius 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'v seen and know about the Treaty of Kars article. I'm not following you. VartanM 05:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize the Republic of Armenia in 1991, whats Eurovision? and whats the connection with what were talking about? VartanM 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep repeating the year, how about justifying the rest of your edits? VartanM 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your continued disruptive behavior is not gonna look good when I report you to administrators. --VartanM 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, can you please list me the incidents of "Turkish-Armenian conflict" between 1922 and 1923, since you claim that the Turkish-Armenian conflict did not end with the Treaty of Kars in 1921? The Armenians' efforts to extend the events until 1923 so that a connection can be established with the present-day Turkish Republic is totally baseless and part of the Armenian propaganda machine. Flavius Belisarius 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you pick a talkpage? I don't feel like repeating myself on two separate pages. The republic of Turkey is the successor state to Ottoman Empire. So you're claim that "Armenians want to extend the genocide from 1921-1923" makes no sense. If we follow your logic "there is no problem right now, because the Republic of Armenia was born in 1991. And how can the republic that was born in 1991 have a conflict with another country for something that happened in 1915?" The reality is that Treaty of Kars, was inherited by modern Turkey and Armenia from their older predecessors. So the Armenians don't need to make a link between Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Its already there. VartanM 23:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

White Genocide
I think a worthwhile little added section to this article, at the end, would the term White Genocide (Jermag Chart) used by many in the Western Armenian Diaspora. It refers to the continued loss of Armenian descendants of the genocide to assimilation due to the continued forcible exile from their homeland in Western Armenia. The reason it is called white, I assume, is a reference to it being bloodless. --RaffiKojian (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1.770.000 of 2.000.000 Ottoman - Armenians were alive in May 1919
The near east report for Syria, The New York Times Current History Magazine for the April-May-June 1919.

This fact based on a statement made by the Armenian Committee for Relief in The Near East.

Look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Near_East_Relief_Report_1919_-_The_New_York_Times_Current_History_-_May_1919.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jedet72 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/US_State_Department_document_on_Armenian_Refugess_in_1921.jpg according to this US state dept. document, there were at least 1250000-1300000 of former ottoman armenians alive at 1921. britannica estimates 1,5 million armenians in ottoman empire at 1914 and armenian patriarch ormanian gives a number close to 1,6 million. but obviously patriarch was working against his own people since later estimates of ottoman armenians inflated over time and must be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.159.231 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your title contradicts your content (first 1.770.000 and afterwards 1250000-1300000), apart from the fact that the source says only 810.000 Ottoman Armenians remained alive, including in this figure the 281.000 that remained in the Ottoman Empire (or Turkey), of which roughly half were in Constantinople, where the Genocide was not fully implemented. Nice fork of info, though. --92slim (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ottoman Armenian casualties. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107175411/http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/Books/book_politics_and_demography.htm to http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/Books/book_politics_and_demography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)