Talk:Siege of Aintab

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Ayintap → Siege of Aintab – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

Unfortunately, Tugrulirmak changed title twice (1, 2) only by his own POV without research.

According do google books,


 * "Siege of Aintab" -Llc 23 results
 * "Siege of Ayintap" -Llc 0
 * "Siege of Ayintab" -Llc 0
 * "siege of Antep" -Llc 0

No original research is important in Wikipedia.

Takabeg (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I was wrong on this one. The reasoning of my move was that in Ottoman Turkish the town is reffered to as Ayintap, I also did not discuss for the article wasa stub and the chances of encaging in a discussion was releatively low. However you have shown that all the sources support the siege of Aintab rather than Ayintap. Therefore you can feel free to move it. My most sincerest apologies, Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merci. If here were an Ottoman Turkish encyclopedia, we can (or must) chose other alternative name. In English,

Takabeg (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ayintab -Llc 169 results
 * Ayintap -Llc 130 results
 * Aintab -Llc 29,300 results
 * Aintap -Llc 62 results
 * Antep -Llc 6,520 results
 * Gaziantep -Llc 18,400 results (but the title "Gazi" was given to the city after this defeat.)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Obvious Armenian revisionism
"“The famous battle of Aintab against the French … seems to have been as much the organised struggle of a group of genocide profiteers seeking to hold onto their loot as it was a fight against an occupying force. The resistance … sought to make it impossible for the Armenian repatriates to remain in their native towns, terrorising them [again] in order to make them flee. In short, not only did the local … landowners, industrialists and civil-military bureaucratic elites lead to the resistance movement, but they also financed it in order to cleanse Aintab of Armenians.”[12]"

I have 3 questions

1- If my edit is nationalist revisionism, then what is this? Is this anything other than Armenian revisionism? Is this anything other than justifying attacking and pillaging a city by the French in Anatolia?

2- How is this even related to the SIEGE of Antep? Do you actually think the Turks defended their own city to protect the loot they got from Armenians? What's next? The Turks migrated to Anatolia in 1071 because they wanted to kill Armenians? The Turks declared independence to kill even more Armenians?

3- Why don't you use this in actual pages like Armenian Genocide, World War One instead of this page?


 * Source checks out. The information seems relevant to me; an academic giving their professional assessment of a battle and its underlying reason(s).


 * "Do you actually think the Turks defended their own city to protect the loot they got from Armenians? "
 * It doesn't matter what I think, believe or feel about the matter. Clearly you are having issues keeping your personal feelings out of this.


 * "The Turks migrated to Anatolia in 1071 because they wanted to kill Armenians? The Turks declared independence to kill even more Armenians?"
 * Do you have any academic sources for this??


 * "Why don't you use this in actual pages like Armenian Genocide, World War One instead of this page?"
 * Can you read? Ümit Kurt's assessment has to do with this battle. "The famous battle of Aintab against the French..."--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A biased academician giving his biased assesment of a battle. If any of you here actually believe that the 'evil' Turks defended their own city to protect their "loot" that they got from innocent Armenians, you're just justifying French invasion of the region with this fairy tale.


 * "Do you have any academic sources for this??"

That was sarcasm. Buhedyar (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "A biased academician giving his biased assessment of a battle."
 * More likely an editor that just doesn't like what a reliable source states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "A biased academician giving his biased assesment of a battle."
 * Compared to a Turkish politician's book being used as a source for history(Sabahattin Selek)?
 * Compared to a conservative Turkish daily newspaper known for its hardline support of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, AK Parti, and accused of using hate speech to target minorities and opposition groups(Yeni Şafak)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, i'm not in favour of just dumping a quote of Kurt's encapsulation of the events to this poorly developed, near stub level, article either. I understand that some editors consider using a quality source to add some content here as a good start, but i can't avoid seeing it as an awkward step: having a short of "level 3" analysis of the events, when the article even lacks a basic structure (to which you could integrate Kurt's focused view). GroGaBa (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)