Talk:Hamidian massacres

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

It appears that Coolcat has edited the page to add factual accuracy dispute comment onto this page without giving a comment as to why. Nor any effort to correct or verify the articly seems to have been taken. There are none of his/her opinions on the talk page neither. Can he post a comment related to this situation. Otherwise if no evidence can be given to the validity of factual accuracy dispute then it should be removed. 203.88.239.105 08:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, however I am very busy with Armenian Genocide. This article will be discussed after Armenian Genocide is resolved, this material was moved form Armenian Genocide. One problem at a time. -- Cat chi? 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given. A "I will do it later" does not suffice. Particularly as the dispute related to the Armenian Genocide will likely and has taken a long time. Your work with that page does not have an end time in sight Meok 12:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article should be cleaned up - it is very hard to read (and I suspect it was originally simply copied from some book). There may be map, information about historical context, sources in its own section and the article needs to be restructured. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This article was cut from the Armenian genocide entry to have its own entry. Right now, it is kind of hard to work on such articles, when there are ultra nationalists like Coolcat interrupting any progresses. Fadix 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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


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

Cleanup instead of revert war?
I recommend to update the article to Wikipedia style, instead of putting/removing on it.

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

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

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

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

One-Sided Super Theories (TL;DR: Researched with evidence by multiple independent researchers)
I can't believe this. Abdul Hamid Khan was the last good emperor of the Ottoman Empire. He contolled the country with his iron hand for 33 years and kept the homeland in peace, even if the empire lost many regions in Europe and Africa. The end of the empire came after they forced him to give up his titles in 1909. Balkan War and WWI were both decisive disasters for the empire and they didn't let "the Sultan of the Sky"(literary name that was given by Nihal Atsız to Abdul Hamid II) to rule his nation during these hard times. Now you are saying that he ordered massacres. Herman Göring once said that the winners will always be the judges. The Ottoman Empire lost the struggle so you have a chance to make up silly lies. Deliogul 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is revoking the 1876 constitution, supressing reforms, tanzimat, etc., the sign of a good emperor? Do you think the fact he was overthrown might have more to do with his poor ruling ability, not his greatness? A similar parallel can be drawn with Nicholas II, another emperor who fought reform as much as possible, who had his throne taken away, and whose country and government collapsed soon after. Was it because of the lack of Nicholas at the helm that the nation collapsed, or that he was so bad that the peoeple saw it necessary to depose him? Abdul Hamid was a notoriously paranoid ruler who used minorities in his nation as scapegoats to cover up the greater problems of his nation. Sultan of the Skies, while it sounds impressive, refers to total autocrats. Atsiz was hardly a couple years old when Hamid was overthrown, if he meant that title in some sort of positive way, he was probably looking back with nostalgia on a past time he wouldn't have even remembered. Seeing as Atsiz is regarded as a pan-Turkist, it is not surprising he'd look back fondly on Abdul-Hamid II for his extreme persecution of non-Turks in his empire. Various groups like to deny the Armenian Genocide and give reasons for it, however now you seem to deny even the fact that Hamid ordered the 1890s massacres?? It is well known that these massacres were carried out by the Hamidiye light cavalry. Hamidiye, as in belonging to Hamid. They were under his control, and carried out his orders. How can one claim Hamid had no part in these massacres, which everyone including all Turkish scholars admit occured, if they were carried out by an organization bearing his name? Vartan84 23:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "autocratic" and "bad". While a tad paranoid (but wouldn't you be too if everyone was trying to kill you?), he did keep the empire almost totally at peace for a long period, drastically reformed the empire, particularly in education, and left a far more viable state than he inherited.

With regard to this article, it is hopelessly biased, the list of casualties leaving off all figures that have much lower death tolls, with the exception of the "Turkish" one, which is unsourced, and obviously left isolated to make it look false. The 1911 Britannica lists the number as 20-25,000 plus up to 7,000 in Istanbul (v2 p568) for example.

Abdul Hamid did NOT use minorities as scapegoats to cover up the problems of the EMPIRE (the poster above's use of the term "nation" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ottoman outlook); quite the contrary, he conciliated the Christian minorities, continuously pardoned their terrorist acts (the Armenians were one of the first great users of terror bombing - they even tried to kill Abdul Hamid with a horse-carriage bomb) and otherwise did everything he could to keep them happy, because trouble with Christians inevitably brought on foreign intervention.

In the case of 1894-95, the Powers were attempting to force reforms on abdul Hamid that would have given the Armenians control over the eastern provinces were they were a small minority. The massacres occurred because locals feared that they were going to be massacred and driven from their lands like they had every other time the empire lost territory and reacted by attacking the Armenians. Where local commanders and administrators stood firm, the Armenians were protected - but most officials were to cowardly - or hateful - to stand in the way of wrongdoers.

And as for the Hamidiye Regiments, there are mountains of documents related to them, but NOT ONE that substantiates the claim that they were organized to destroy the Armenians. Quite to the contrary, they were a (ultimately misguided) effort to draw the Kurds into the Ottoman system and sedentarize them so they would become a productive population instead of a constant source of disorder and instability.

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

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

NPOV Violation
This is one, gigantic, Armenian-sided story. Nowhere else in the world do people believe that these massacres occured, other than in Armenia itself. Why, just a few months ago (maybe a year) an American historian went to Turkey and gave public speaches about how this was a time of war and that many things were exaggerated, especially for the side of the Armenians. This was a sort of push against the Ottomans so that the Christian countries would fight with the Ottomans. Besides, I hardly see any references to any of the facts in this section.
 * Perhaps this historian was somebody like Justin McCarthy, who doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of American scholars? There are referenced sources in the article that are definitely not entirely Armenian, notably the Constitutional Rights Foundation and the United Human Rights Council. -- Augustgrahl 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


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


 * we call it as "lobby"

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


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

Dear Anonymous Armenian, its not the other way around. It is actually the other way around. Armenians deny that they took arms against the ottomans and massacred their fellow neighbors. Besides France and Switzerland, (and any other country that does not have an Armenian Lobby) no government accept to refer the events that took place as genocide. Moreover, many people know (not believe) that historians have not agreed on what happened. Therefore, what this article states is clearly biased. Some day some Turks are gona say enuff and call out Turkish historians with good English to flood this so called article. Sincerely anonymous Turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.38.221 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Armenians took arms and attacked their fellow neighbors? Turks seem to only know about the armenians because armenians are the most vocal and the modern Turkish government focuses on them. You should look into the people you don't know about: the greeks and assyrians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide. Later on, 1937, there is this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre. Then, there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon. Are you denying that the turks were performing ethnic cleansing? Vmelkon (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, an armenian lobby exists because a diaspora exists all over the world. A diaspora exists because of the Armenian genocide of ~1915. That's the part that turks fail to mention when they complain about the evil "armenian lobby". Also, you forget to mention the tactics the turkish government uses to get its own way: Bribery, threat to cancel contracts. With a huge powerful country that Turkey has, with its 80 million population, you can't fight against a tiny population of 3 million armenians and5 million diaspora. BTW, did you notice those numbers? Armenians are the only people where most of them are outside their native lands. Do you have an explanation for that? Vmelkon (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality issues
the article is biased and contains heavy Dashnak and diaspora POV, there is no opponent view(it is mentioned that there is a Turkish view, but it is not given in teh article and is discredited in absentia).88.248.113.212 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you sould look at the sources again. VartanM (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it True? (Spoilers: It is)
Is this massacre really happened this way? I read some books about Ottoman Empire and mostly it says that with the western propoganda Armenian's revolted, then they are relocated again and again by Ottomans, lots of people died on the roads and Armenians wanted something out of it and said it was a holocaust. Of course there were killings, but 300.000? Also, i heard that in Ottoman Archives, that are now in Turkey, proves that there were Armenian gangs that killed Ottoman villagers. I'm not Turkish, but not just this "Armenian Holocaust", many things that are said by old enemies of Turks seems made up. In the end, Ottoman's dominated Europe for centuries and many nations lived under their rule. It isn't logical. "Ottomans used violance to keep those nations under their control and those nations didn't do anything" is what many countries try to mean. Armenians lived in those lands for hundreds of years and in an instant Ottomans got angry and killed 300.000 Armenians? Look at Ottomans' old lands. Middle East is full of war. Balkans were full of war and it is still in a really unbalanced state. Real massacres are happening there. Also, what Armenians trying to get from this? They are trying to prove Armenian Holocaust for years and if Turkey gives up what will they get? Land? Money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogly95 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A better question would be why is Turkey not addressing this? What does it stand to gain by not telling its people about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.97 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I will give you both sides. Abedagoat12 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources by Armenian authors
We can easily see that a lot of Armenian sources are used in the article, these include: Kurdoghlian, Mihran (1996). Պատմութիւն Հայոց (History of Armenia), Volume III. Athens, Greece: Council of National Education Publishing. pp. 42–44., for example. Using Armenian sources is as wrong as using Turkish sources, which say that nothing has happened. So, I am adding the template citation needed where it is appropriate. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Using Armenian sources is as wrong as using Turkish sources, which say that nothing has happened." That's a ridiculous way of justifying your edits. Excluding a source based solely on the author's ethnicity or nationality is not sufficient a reason to say that we cannot use them. The only reason Turkish sources are not acceptable here is because they are all part and parcel of the Turkish government and are used for propaganda and ideological purposes. Most of the fact tags you added, furthermore, seemed to be placed in bad faith and looked very disruptive, so please use more discretion next time. While a certain sentence or line might need more clarification or another source, you cannot seriously expect that every single phrase or sentence will have a citation next to it, especially since it's standard practice to put citations at the very end of the paragraphs on the topics they are talking about. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't expect every single sentence to be sourced, but you ignore the unsourced sentences which don't have sources at the end of the paragraph, like Sultan Abdul Hamid sent the Ottoman army into the area and also armed groups of Kurdish irregulars. The violence spread and affected most of the Armenian towns in the Ottoman empire. or the third paragraph in the Background section. Anyway, I can assume bad faith in your edit because you just ridiculously attack on me. Now, let's be more objective. Who is Mr Mihran Kurdoghlian? A historian? No! According to this press release, he is a college dean, which should have not studied history. So, you cite a book of an Armenian which a religious person, and not a historian? No, this is not a reliable source. Let's continue: Ha-melitz, a Jewish newspaper. As I looked at Google, I saw only one newspaper with this name, it is published in St Petersburg in this period. And what was its mission? According to this article, its mission is "mediating between Jews and the Government and between faith and enlightenment". This is not a reliable source either. And Richard Hovhanissian, you can see his POV here, and his son heads a political party, but anyway, since he is a historian, I won't tag the sentences cited by his work for now. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've really justified your addition of the citation tag regarding the article written in Hebrew. The quotation you provided doesn't even suggest that somehow its reliability is compromised due to its statement of purpose. It sounds fine to me, and even though I cannot read in Hebrew, I'm assuming good faith that the source reflects what is given in the text.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot read in Hebrew either, and I would not add the citation tag if I did not see this. It is obvious that this is a political newspaper. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am having a hard time seeing any grounds for complaint here. These early 20th century newspapers were aligned with the Zionist movement and the only hostility or bias they might show was against the Russian Empire, which in and of itself is justifiable. I'm sorry, but unless you provide some concrete evidence that this newspaper's reliability is compromised somehow, I'm afraid that I will view further attempts to de-legitimatize this source as simple "stonewalling", and this is especially so considering that yourself have essentially admitted that you cannot read the content of the source you are trying so hard to discredit.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If a newspaper is zionist, you expect its articles to be neutral abot the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim country which has "destroyed synagogues", don't you? If it is a Zionist newspaper, it will of course write articles with an anti-Ottoman POV. Please be objective. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are now making ill-faith assumptions based solely on your beliefs and are now employing non sequitur arguments. I'm sorry but further attempts to discredit this source in such an unsubstantiated manner will be treated as ill-faith in nature and will be reported to the administrators.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to continue this conversation which became very annoying and I see that Wikipedia's policies are totally ignored. At least, things are not like this in my home wiki, at least tagging an unreliable source is considered as good faith and I unfortunately see that en.wiki is just a place where unreliable sources are widely accepted if they are not Turkish. If the things I do were vandalism, were bad faith, I would destroy the whole article. Report it, and I will treat this as ill-faith. Never mind, I have lots of work to do, articles to translate. This is the last thing on earth that interests me, and yet tagging is vandalism. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like not all Turkish scholarship rejects the reality of the Armenian genocide not all Armenian Scholarship is unreliable. Each source must be evaluated on its merits. EVen if a source is biased we an still use it to source a particular viewpoint - for example a Turkish book that denies the genocide could be used to source that particular Turkish viewpoint. In the same way Armenian sources can be used even if they are not neutral. The article has to be neutral but the sources need not be. The article is neutral if it presents both viewpoints and allots weight in favor of the majority viewpoint (here clearly the Armenian pov is closer to the majority than the Turkish nationalist denial pov).·Maunus· ƛ · 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. Use of biased source in a sentence which says "This happened" is against NPOV. But if you say "According to XX, this happened", this is good and it should be like this. But unfortunately the case here is the first one. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Yair Auron, "The position of Hamelitz on the events in Constantinople in 1895 was clearly pro-Turkish." (Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism & the Armenian Genocide, Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 144.) Takabeg (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming
Hamidian massacres in Google Books: only 430 results. A series of massacres, in which 300,000 people were killed, which is a part of a "genocide", should have a more widespread name, this number of results is certainly not enough for such a series of massacres. Is there a more widespread name? If not, why there are so little results? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like "Massacres of 1894-1896" is more common. "1894-96", "1894-1896" and "1894-6" are the same. In google books, 286 + 241 + 51 = 578. Massacres of 1894-1896 is certainly more common in reliable sources. Also, there are the same things: 60, 96, 10. Totally 730. The difference is obvious. Massacres of 1894-1896 is far more widespread in reliable sources. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also more widespread in Google Scholar. And anyway, there aren't any other "Massacres of 1894-96". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "Armenian Massacres of 1894-96" would be a better title, but "Hamidian massacres" does seen to have firmly established itself in many Wikipedia articles. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Massacres in Erzurum (1895) merge proposal
A merge have been proposed since July 2011. I personally think the content should be merged here since this page needs some serious attention to expand it.--  R a f y  talk 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) - the Erzurum massacres are interesting because they were documented in some detail by photographs, and citable material exists about that fact. So there is probably enough material to fill a separate article, material which would be too specialised to be in a general article on all the massacres. Meowy 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: my revert
The explanation should read: Hovannisian is the editor, not the author.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes him quite neutral indeed; just like your user name. BTW you do not accept any "Turkish" sources other than Akçam, right? Even US President Bill Clinton is not a good enough source for you. Continue self-convincing edits. --E4024 (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on the content, not the editor. What is the bone of contention, exactly? Do you think Aivazian is misquoting Sachtleben? Do you think Sachtleben is lying? Please explain. Your lack of specifics makes this come off as another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Where to begin, how to do?
I am referring to trying to make this article an NPOV reporting. It is simply impossible. Trying to read it, with all my goodwill, I cannot prevent myself from astonishment on how history can be told in such a flawed, biassed, clumsily partial way. The "Background" section begins with a paragraph, without any sourcing, trying to convince the reader that Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II suddenly and for no reason decided to annihilate the Armenians in the Empire (while he had Armenian civil servants in the highest levels in his administration). The article has a "civil population attack" infobox but this same section states clearly, well for me at least, that the Armenians were armed! From the text: "The formation of Armenian revolutionary groups began roughly around the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878 and intensified in the following years." (Not so necessary for our objective editors but good to remind the others that the Armenians were again armed during the Great War of 1914-18 and helped the Russians against the Ottoman Empire, their own country.) Now tell me please exactly when the Hamidian corps were formed. The article refers first to the forming of the so-called Hamidian corps (Hamid was enthroned in 1876, and the Hamidian Massacres take place in 1894-96 according to our article!) So who was armed first, the chicken or the egg? (I forgot that according to our article Hamid's forces attacked the innocent Armenians, but only 16 years after they were armed by the Armenian Revolutionary Committees: "In 1894, the Sultan began to target the Armenian people in a precursor to the Hamidian massacres." (From our article; which does not explain us why the Armenians were armed -IMO from 1878 onwards- and since when.) From the article again: "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation armed the people of the region. The Armenians confronted the Ottoman army (wow, Braveheart!) and Kurdish irregulars at Sassoun, finally succumbing to superior numbers and to Turkish assurances of amnesty (which was never granted)." Would you mind adding in the text since when they exactly began arming the "people of the region", please, this is an Edit Request. Who are the people of the region? (Is it simply because you did not want to repeat the word "Armenian", or you mean the Armenian Revolutionary Federation also armed other people, or are you trying to tell us that "the people of the region were Armenians? (Show me one major city in all Ottoman Empire in the XIX Century whose population was 51% Armenian.) BTW who is the famous Turkish historian "Osman Nuri"? The only famous person with that name I know was a Turkish delight producer. (Turkish delight is something I would suspect they call "Armenian delight" in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora...) This historian is quoted from a quote by an Armenian historian. If these events occurred in Ottoman Turkey, why don't you use Turkish historians? I know a good one: Prof. Dr. Sina Akşin. (He does not deny anything.) Let me write down what I remember from his book. (Sorry I will not be able to put a ref as I live away from my home and library, but promise to add it here as soon as I get there.) (I quote) The Armenian question is not much different than the independence struggle of other christian peoples from the Empire. They observed what happened in the Balkans in the previous years and tried to do the same: First get armed. (There always was a foreign power to help, which had an interest in the dissolution of the Empire.) Then rebel. Help the enemy (in this case Russians). Kill Turkish (or muslim) civilians around. Do this especially in a brutal manner. This way you will make sure to attract a more harsh repression from the Ottomans. Then cry and ask help to the Great Powers of the time. Some of them will come and help you, either for religious solidarity or for their own interests or both. However, the situation of the Armenians had some differences to "the christian peoples of the Balkans". First of all they were not majority in any place they lived. (No justification for separate sovereignty.) Secondly, they generally lived far away from the coasts, and the "gunboat diplomacy" could not be of help to them. (End of my memory quote) Let us return to quoting the article: "Unrest occurred in 1892 at Marsovan and in 1893 at Tokat." (We pass with only one sentence, without explaining anything, the reasons of the harsh repression. But from the reppression we make several WP articles (the articles on the same issue multiply more easily and rapidly than an amoeba) and try to add wikilinks to those many articles from any other article possible; an Armenian who lived "half a century before" or "was born half a century after" this or that blue link repression. Whereas the reasons only in one shy sentence.) Quote: "The first notable battle in the Armenian resistance took place in Sasun." (So if there were "battles", we are talking about an "internal" (or civil) war" in the Empire. Why don't we call the article as it should be? The infobox of the article is called "Infobox civilian attack". (I used to think, before reading this excellent article that it was so because the Hamidian massacres were an attack by the Ottoman armed elements against Armenian civilians. As the Armenians were "armed" and there were "battles", there is something wrong here. Or maybe the infobox means "Armenian civilians attacked the Ottoman Empire.") Oh, I was almost forgetting, the background of why the Armenians rebelled (although this word is never used) is explained in the second paragraph of the "Background" section. I feel "panic" when I see the ref no 7 there: The clumsy POV text has been taken from the United Human Rights Council. (Did you also think, like me, at first lecture that it was a UN body?) Well I really thought and began to read the full text from the source; 'cause I would like to know what the United (Nations) Human Rights Council had to say about this human tragedy. (Hello Saroyan) I read and strangely find it a "childish" text. I think by myself "This could be a model UN, that kind of gatherings that highschool students make, and they prepared a paper?" Then I notice: The word "United" is not followed by "Nations" and indeed it is an "Armenian university and college something organisation". Can you believe, we explain the background of the Hamidian Masacres based on a text written by a student organisation! I would like to ask those students to write also an essay on the reformation of the Otttoman Empire from 1839; (as a homework) because they claim the Armenians did not have the right to vote and they were asking this right! So who voted for the election of the Armenian deputies in the first Ottoman Parliament? Maybe the Armenians did not have the right to vote but they had the right to be elected; another peculiar practice of these awkward Turks! (Sorry Turks, I call you awkward because you even made an Armenian the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Empire at a time when the Armenians were trying to divide the country, remember?...) I cannot go on more now, but I promise I will return to criticise this article; hoping to develop it, altogether, and not using only -or mostly- writers whose surnames end in "ian". That does not look like a very PNOV attitude to me. (To be contd.) (Well, maybe not, if the article is written again, from scratch, with an NPOV approach, before I have this much time again to return and continue discussing here.) --E4024 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Takabeg (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hamidian massacres have not received as much scholarly scrutiny as the Armenian Genocide, but if you are truly interested in learning about it and contributing to this article I would recommend the first chapter of Raymond Kévorkian's The Armenian Genocide ("Abdülhamid and the Ottoman Opposition"). The subject is also covered in the second chapter of Guenter Lewy's The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. I have access to these two sources, which are both fairly recent publications, and will try to provide proper citations. JackalLantern (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article still has room for improvement but the long and short of it is the following: Abdul Hamid was fully aware of the downward slide of the Ottoman Empire after the losses it incurred in the 1977-78 war with Russia. First the Greeks, then the Balkans, then the expulsion of Russian Muslims from the Caucasus and their settlement in Anatolia – and now the Armenians were clamoring for autonomy and better rights. Abdul Hamid forsook Ottomanism and took up the cause of Pan-Islamism to maintain influence and control of the world falling around him. The massacre of a hundred thousand Armenians was not a campaign of extermination but more a lesson for the Armenians to cease their constant agitation for equal rights. Abdul Hamid was also said to be a mentally unstable man, which might explain the disproportionate punishment the Armenian people received at his hands.


 * E4024's attitude and past edits, including his sudden inexplicable removal of testimony provided by an American eyewitness, does not inspire in me much confidence that he is approaching this topic fairly. But if he is interested in improving this article, then let him give up his long diatribes and offer proposals and reliable, third-party sources. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should most of those "third-party sources" have to have a surname ending in "yan" or "ian"? Do you look at the mirror sometimes? I mean the refs in this very article? --E4024 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter a wooden nickle whether an author's last name ends in "ian" or "oglu". All that matters is their scholarly credentials and competence in their field.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You can find a large number of contemporary accounts by western travellers, here is one example. The fact that Armenian historians are interested in the subject doesn't mean it didn't happen.--  R a f y  talk 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Armenian Question/Reform demand issues
Karapet, I appreciate the edits you are making to this page but 5,000 kilobits of text is far too large for a single edit or even three edits spaced apart from one another. I put a lot of effort in expanding this article, and while additional content is welcome, large clumps of text and poorly-written and -formatted paragraphs have the effect of hindering the readability of the article. I invite you to please post up the content you are adding here, allow me and other editors to review and revise them if necessary. A sentence like "In Bulgarian historiography, Liberation of Bulgaria means the events of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 that led to the re-establishment of Bulgarian Sovereign state with the Treaty of San Stefano" has absolutely no relevance to the massacres of the 1890s. I will eventually revert and remove the information again but will refrain from doing it if you simply paste the new material on the talk page and use it to discuss your edits (which you should be doing regardless). Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you write this article? The article skips years, even decades, without clearly mentioning, where, when, and what. For a novice reader (not endowed in this period) it is plainly confusing. I believe you already included two lines in two different paragraphs about "Armenian Question." The war with Russia, Berlin is already in the Article. My work is a good summary of the concept. You are welcome to add the missing points (your two lines). I do not see any reason not be included. Tell me what a person should not know about Armenian Patriarch's position (ultimately Article 61) in his famous speech and what it meant which is Liberation of Bulgaria. --Karapet81 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, yes, the form it's found right now was largely a result of my own revisions. But I don't own this article and have no right to dictate what should be included or excluded. That being said, it doesn't mean you get to do so either. Let me state I don't find your additions objectionable in essence but rather the manner in which you have tried to integrate it into this article, which has been very roughshod. In its current state, the article is very disorganized; the content does not flow smoothly; the grammar is atrocious; and some of the material is not even relevant to the subject. I have invited you already (and extend it one more time) to post this new material, allow myself and other editors to format and edit it so it is at least tidy, and then add it here. The fact that you have been uncooperative so far and have decided to make so little use of the talk page while continuing to revert my edits does not inspire confidence in me that you wish to see this article improve. Again, I will revert your edits and will consider even reporting you to Wikipedia's administrators if this battlefield-like mentality continues. Please be aware of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. With regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not uncooperative. That is not true. I want to add two sections. You do not accept either my additions or any correction by me. I would like to present an offer. I will add two sections "Armenian question" and "Armenian reform demand" to the background section. I will NOT ADD any facts (but only correct the language, and style), by moving already included (by you) into this article. --Karapet81 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good, if you want to work amicably with fellow editors, please add those two sections here and we'll take a look at them (and please remove them from the article for the moment - you're not doing any readers any favors right now, the confusing and sorry state it's in).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the text. If we agree on this version, I want to add my two cents to these sections. --Karapet81 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please post it here. I can't clearly make anything out the way it is right now. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the text to replace "Armenian Question" section. Only the first paragraph, and the third paragraph belongs to me (my two cents). The 2nd and 4th was already there.

--Karapet81 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please give me and others a week or so to review this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You bet! --Karapet81 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, anyone who glances over the above passage and some of the other material added will realize that they have been lifted from the first introductory paragraphs on the Armenian Genocide (much of which in turn was written by me). This in and of itself is not a problem but in the interests of readability and providing clear, concise information to the reader, it must be trimmed down to a section and a subsection or two. The current organizational structure of the article is also highly problematic, confusing, and written in broken English, and the best solution will probably be to revert it back to its original form.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, You claim, (a) all the text (first and third) belongs to you (The 2nd and 4th was already in the article). And you claim that text is "written in broken English." It is obvious that 2nd and 4th paragraphs are related but in different places in the article. Instead of conceptually organizing the text and putting in historically order, you want to keep the old article because when the information is organized in topics and sequenced in a historical timeline it becomes ", confusing," All this done under "Good Will," because instead of correcting the "broken English." You want to remove everything, which also prevents me adding anything into this article. Did I get it correct?--Karapet81 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. In fact, judging by your defensive tone, it seems that you have deliberately misunderstood me. I don't own this article but neither do you and your edits are not immutable. I have have been editing for close to eight years now and have authored a number of FA and Good articles and so I have a fair idea of what a good quality article looks like. The current version is a far cry from that and rather than presenting a brief background for the main topic, it meanders and subjects readers to a numbingly long and dreadful prose. Your failure to see that and to reciprocate good faith is unfortunate. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. If I got you wrong, sorry. Regarding long texts, we have sections to help for both novice and advance readers. It gives chance to "skip". In current form, the article is not deep enough to explain one of the major historical points. There is a side article which is also about this period. It explains one administrative unit during (only) one year, but it has twice the coverage. It is obvious you are an advance reader. You may not need to be introduced to what is "Armenian Question" and "Armenian Reform demands." If you keep these headings out (though you already have one liners), people who read the article do not get "who, where, when, what" and most importantly WHY. I gather (as you said I did not understand you) you do not object these sections, but they should be linked to development of the events in the article. Clear structure makes the article connected (and not "numblingly long and dreadful"). If that is your criteria, but not keep me out, "give me a chance" to form this article in a better structure. (beyond the two sections) What I'm asking is: "Article needs a balance structure (I got it); let me work on all the text rather than one section. So that the text at the end of the day would not look like disconnected." --Karapet81 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will make some edits to the article and you can give me feedback.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. to your response. It would be nice to have a heading "Hamidian events" separated by "1894 (year)" and "1895 (year)" and "1896 (year)". The years may have "Firsthand recount", or not... that is how you would like to harmonize the text. There are some references (3 maybe) that do not obey the citation format. A change in the heading "Historiography" to "Armenian Genocide"? It is better to have the title matching the content (Not claiming misleading, but ...). Karapet81 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I know at first glance it may not seem so, but I think my most recent edit preserves the essence of the edits preceding it. There were certain, of course, which came across as irrelevant - Khrimian Hayrik's "Ladle" speech, his exhortation on following the example of the Bulgarians, Patriarch Nerses II's visit to the Russian military command before the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano. These might be relevant to the Hamidian massacres but they are not required or necessary background knowledge. The painting of the delegates at the Congress is equally irrelevant. I do believe the social situation and living standards of the Armenians prior to the massacres is very important, and I tried to expand that section in the article. But we can't let the background section be so long as to shift the emphasis of the article from the main topic to another area.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I read your points regarding Armenian Question. They are O.K. I added some essential sentences to explain the situation of "Hamidye". I would like to create two sections. "Hamidian events" and "Firsthand recount of massacres" and collect the text in the article under these sections.  I would like to point out that (a) no text will be added (b) only stylistic changes to the current text. I will wait for your input for the created sections. We will see where we can go from there. --Karapet81 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disconnecting the events and POV issues
Articles in general should avoid a straight blow by blow chronicle of events listed under year headlines. The edits you make do not have a smooth transition flow. The topics jump from the sympathy great powers felt for the Armenians in 1896 to first-person accounts of the massacres in 1895. The current structure is, and I'm sure others would agree, more clear. It gives the reader the background information; it then transitions to the immediate events leading to the massacres; it gives a first-person account of the killings, giving the reader some idea of the event; then moves on to discuss the reactions and repercussions; and finally historiography. This structure should not be altered.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Disturbances in Sasun" and "Takeover of the Ottoman Bank" are part of Hamidian massacres. If you have a title "Massacres" and not include these events, it creates POV issues. It is something like telling the "2012 Benghazi attack" without telling about the riots or armed people taking/killing hostages. Let's assume you have a point in headings presented by years (I personally do not agree). The act you took by reverting my edit basically distributed the connected events to different parts of the article. It is not telling history and letting people decide, but telling people what you want them to read. --Karapet81 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I honestly am not convinced by that assertion. The disturbance in Sasun was an event leading up to the full-scale massacres in the central and eastern provinces. The takeover of the bank was an attempt by a political party to bring attention to massacres that had already taken place. Nowhere have I indicated that I wish to exclude these from this article. Your edits, frankly put, don't quite add much to the article. They're cosmetic changes and in that case don't make the article look any better, but do the opposite. I've read and edited enough articles to know how to present information and I am absolutely perplexed by your allegation that somehow I am leading readers on to think a certain way (and how in that case your version is any better or manages not to do that). And what's with the "dispute" tag? What facts exactly are in dispute? You have to justify adding a tag that so tarnishes the quality of an article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hamidian massacres, as stated in your leading paragraph, begins in 1894 and ends in 1896. This article is not factual as it is not telling of a "period of conflicts" involving the Armenian minority. These conflicts+events which begin "sasun 1894" and continue/include but are not limited to Massacres of Diyarbakır (1895)" also "1896 Defense of Van. Yes, there are massacres in these years, but hamidian massacres is not limited with death and destruction. In every step, (multi-year story) there are political and social consequences. The discussion of "partitioning of Empire in 1896" by the Great Powers is part of "Hamidian massacres." In fact death and destruction is a backdrop. In all this, this text includes only two major events of the period. One event is hidden under background heading and other in the end of article. One would do this if they have nothing to do with the actual events. Yes! It is not "FACTUALLY CORRECT," because the article, in its form, is a "soup" of events which is kept ("OWNED") intentionally and actively. Until the article finds a way to tell the "historical" events in correct and related order, it is not telling in full and correct story.--Karapet81 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not follow your line of thought and it appears that other readers and editors do not, either. I will duly remove the fact tag (I don't think you even understand its actual purpose), but please bring this up with a third party and ask them if even they share, much less understand, your argument.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan, You OWN this article. That is not acceptable. You don't let any meaningful content added to this article (such as a section for "responsible parties" or role of revolutionaries: .) You don't let any basic introduction, or moving related text side by side to create content integrity is not acceptable for you. It is so absurd that a general text, which is readily available to anyone (at one point claimed added by you in another article), can be reverted with a reason presented as "not good English!" . I presented my objection about the structure of the article, without clearly explaining why I'm wrong, you unilaterally reverted. At the end of the day, you reverted all my edits. There is not a single "cited" fact I could managed to add to this article. That is not correct. You claim that you are a Good Faith editor. But I do not agree with that claim. --Karapet81 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you cannot expect everyone to like the edits you make. I am of the opinion that most of the material comes off as irrelevant or too incoherent to make sense of, and should not be included right away. The indulgence of other editors cannot be taken for granted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamidian massacres. 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://archive.is/20120523222458/http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/yv544142p5rnx055/ to http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/yv544142p5rnx055/

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) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources
Multiple articles are listed at:

Some I found: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation
The article says “To the Turkish mind, the Armenians had tried to overstep these limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They, therefore, considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and property of the Armenians." Which is not true in any parts in Turkiye for sure. People in Ottoman Empire and Turkiye is not like what this article says. Turks denies the genocide and don’t agree that it actually happened. Some says yes there were some killings but it happened only because Armenians attacked Turkish villages first. There is no such thing that Turks believes it’s their religious duty to kill Armenians like what??? That religious part really took me. In a funny way. Turks are not Muslim barbars like most European countries try to make them seem like. But most people believe that lie for sure and the amount of people in Europe and USA who believes this happend because of Islam is crazy. So the mindset of people in Turkiye DEFINITELY not like what this article says. I just wanted to correct this. Rainismm (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is misinformation as much as a quote from a contemporary and British (?) POV, tainted by racial/religious biases of the time, that is very dated by today's standards and is used verbatim to fill out a section without adding any useful information to the article.
 * Unfortunately, no page is cited, and access to the entire book online is limited if we wanted to get more context on who is speaking. I think the quote should be removed, but I'm inexperienced on WP and not sure what policy dictates. Crystalespeon (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source
The source which claims ”25 000 assyrians” were killed is not true.

first of all the use of the term assyrian is historical wrong, the correct term is Syrian Orthodox or Syriac orthodox.

Second of all armenians were the main target. The syriac church got a garanti that their members would not be targeted. However a couple of hundred would be die as a result of the massacer since the muslims kurds can not differ between a Syriac and a Armenian 194.237.232.186 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)