Talk:The Memoirs of Naim Bey

Merge proposal
I propose to merge Aram Andonian to this article. The only claim to fame of Andonian is his authorship of this book, and apart from one brief sentence in the Aram Andonian article, all its content is about the book and the telegrams therein. --Lambiam 20:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly propose to merge Aram Andonian to this article. What is wrong with merging the author and what he wrote? (Karpuzpeynir (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

No merge needed!
I am strongly against a merge of the articles The Memoirs of Naim Bey with Aram Andonian. This proposal shows complete disregard for the upmost interesting biography of Aram Andonian and his works - journalistic as well as novels. He was an eyewitness to the Armenian Genocide and the Balkan wars. If you have ever seen his Armenian book on the Balkan Wars which was reedited recently in Turkish (!) [] you would quickly agree with me. The Balkan Wars led to WWI. Because of the Balkan Wars there were so many moacirs (displaced Muslims from the Balkans who simply became Christian haters; they were settled in Armenian provinces - either out of necessity or of power play of the Ottoman government or both....

The Memoirs of Naim Bey [in the original Armenian edition: Մեծ Ոճիրը; The Great Crime] are just one chapter. Make a link in his works to the article The Memoirs of Naim Bey. And you can write pages and pages about the authenticity (main subject of revisionists) and the differences of the French, English editions and the Armenian original.

From a biographic point of view (he was deported to Çankırı in 1915, escaped, only to join another deportation caravan to Aleppo and further into the deserts and death camps and witnessed all the horrors) he is important. From a historic point of view (Historiy of the Balkan Wars [Պատկերազարդ Ընդարձակ Պատմութիւն Պալքանեան Պատերազմին]) he is still important and stays still from a literary point of view (In those dark days, his Shirvanzadeh Biography [Շիրվանզադէ. Կենսագրական Նօթեր]) there is a LOT more to write about Aram Andonian. Read what Hagop Oshakan, Armenian literary critic using Freudian theories, has written about the literary works of Aram Andonian. And you will see I am right! Apocolocynthosis (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A Turkish View on Authenticity
A Turkish scholar doesn't want to enter into a debate over authenticity at the moment but stresses: It is possible to prove that at least some of the published and unpublished documents in the possession of scholars share the same contents as documents published by Andonian... p. 378 Taner Akçam: A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, Metropolitan Books, New York 2006 ISBN 978-0-8050-7932-6 --> To be continued in the forthcoming book Denial and Rewriting History by Taner Akçam. Apocolocynthosis (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That means that some scholars use forged documents to prove the genocide happened as it is widely believed the Andonian documents are fakes and Andonian himself addmited the propaganda purpose of these "documents". --82.113.122.165 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
@78.160.152.145 - I suggest you delete the chapter The forgeries of Aram Andonian or integrate its content properly with a sentence or two and notes into the text. What you did is copy paste not to say almost vandalism. This is not appropriate. Apocolocynthosis (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
To whomever copypasted the material, welcome to wiki, you are welcome to contribute, but you can't copy-paste material from websites. Please see WP:Copyright VartanM (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian
I have removed this section because it seems to be original research. The cited sources do not make the assertion that the telegrams "help acquit Tehlirian" - in fact the trial transcript indicates that the telegrams played no part in the trial because the judge stated that it was Tehlirian, not Talat, who was on trial.

VON GORDON — In refutation of this point, I would like to present five telegrams from the Vice-governor of Aleppo, Syria.

(von Gordon wishes to put said telegrams on the court table)

VON GORDON — I would like to read two of these telegrams as proof of this point. Professor Lepsius has examined these telegrams.

PRESIDING JUSTICE — You would be anticipating the evidence if you were now to read these telegrams.

VON GORDON — At least I would like to mention the contents of these telegrams. The telegrams prove that Talaat personally gave the orders to massacre alt the Armenians including women and children. Originally the order was given to spare only those children who were too young to remember what had happened to their parents. However, in March 1916 this order was rescinded as it was felt that these children could, in the future, turn out to be a dangerous element in the community.

The witness Andonian can testify to the authenticity of these telegrams. He obtained them directly from the office of the Vice-governor of Aleppo after the British occupation. Then he placed them at the disposal of the Armenian Delegation.

I personally feel it is important, essential in fact, that the Jurors accept the defendants belief that Talaat was the responsible party and the author of the Armenian Genocide. If the Jurors are willing to accept this, then I am willing to waive the reading of these telegrams.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY — I feel that the motion should be denied. Even though great latitude was granted to discuss this subject, nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this body, nor is it within its competence, to come to a historic decision pertaining to the guilt or innocence of Talaat and the extent of his involvement in the massacre of the Armenians. The essential point is that the defendant believed that Talaat was the responsible party and thus the motive becomes fully clear.

VON GORDON — In view of the position taken by the District Attorney and the effect it has had on the jurors, I would like to cancel my motion to have these telegrams read into the record.

Meowy 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, maybe something should be said in the article about the public impact the telegrams made when released - part of that could be a mention of the attempt to introduce them as evidence into the Tehlirian trial. Meowy 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?
Do the writings of Richard Albrecht, such as his Crime/s Against Mankind, Humanity and Civilisation cited as source in the article, qualify as reliable sources? As far as I can see all of it is self-published and has not been subjected to peer review. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. --Lambiam 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Naim Bey merge proposal
Naim Bey, if he exists, is only notable in the context of these memoirs. There's not enough known about him to warrant an individual article. I propose we merge that article into this one. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've turned Naim Bey into a redirect; there wasn't really anything worth merging. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson
The reason this cannot be used as an article of the denial machine of the current Turkish government, is that Niall Ferguson, the famous Scottish historian from Harvard and Stanford has confirmed that this document was legit. A point which is also corroborated by the selective use of sources without mentioning their origin inside this article. Also, from now on, if someone is Turkish, then confirm this, instead of hiding it. --92slim (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Revisionism
Türkkaya Ataöv is a revisionist as testified by the title of most of his books and his affiliation with the TTK and other revisionist organizations; 'Armenian document forgery' by Türkkaya Ataöv, 2006, ISBN 9944-1-0908-8. Please stop including him as a source. Further proof (included here before): --92slim (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Türkkaya Ataöv, The Andonian "Documents" Attributed to Talat Pasha are Forgeries!, Ankara, 1984.
 * Id., Documents on the Armenian Question: Forged and Authentic, Ankara, 1985.
 * Id., Armenian Falsifications, New York: Okey, 2008.

The analysis of Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca also cannot be included as they belong to the denialist think tank Institute for Armenian Research (EREN). Proof: --92slim (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Talat Pasha Telegrams (analysis by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca stating the telegrams are forgeries), Nicosia, K. Rustemn & Brothers, 1986.

Neutrality
In the authenticity section it says: "Historian Vahakn N. Dadrian, born in Turkey and raised in the US, has argued in 1986 that the points brought forth by Turkish historians are misleading and has countered the discrepancies they have raised."

But nowhere in the text are these points, brought forth by Turkish historians, given, or any points against the authenticity. I think I remember that there used to be some points made by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca in this article but they seem to be deleted. Only points in support of the authenticity are left in the article.

Furthermore the article calls Guenter Lewy, a notorious genocide denier and lists anyone doubting the authenticity under the head "revisionism", calling them "notorious" and "deniers" as if a list of criminals. Again none of the actual points against the authenticity are anywhere given. Among scholars there are serious doubts about the authenticity of the papers. Even those that support recognition of the Armenian genocide. It is a shame that this article is hijacked by POV warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.65.45 (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't any serious doubts. Niall Ferguson has already confirmed it. This is not a place to spread revisionist propaganda, those kind of activities belong inside personal blogs. Just to point out what is in the article (a section that revisionists tend to carefully avoid):"(Niall Ferguson) point(s) to the fact that the court did not question the authenticity of the telegrams in 1921–which, however, were not introduced as evidence in court–and that the British had also intercepted numerous telegrams which directly "incriminated exchanges between Talaat and other Turkish officials"" --92slim (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Authencity heading
The article has a chapter titled 'Authencity', in which they proceed to explain why the Memoirs are indeed reliable. To top it off, the chapter is then followed by a chapted titled 'Revisionism' and in which they begrudgingly mention the views of scholars like Zurcher. Shouldn't a chapter titled 'Authencity' start by describing that the reliability of the Memoirs is doubted by many serious scholars? That's the entire point of the chapter, the fact that the Memoirs are thought to be fakes.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thought to be fakes by some of the stoolies of the Turkish government - so revisionists, not scholars. 92slim (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a new book about the Memoirs of Naim Bey, by Taner Akcam, detailed in an interview here . In the light of this, I think the article needs reordering. I suggest removing the separate "revisionism" section and incorporating it into the main "Authenticity" section, turning that section into more of a timeline based responses to the book, and perhaps have the section renamed "Responses". In "revisionism" we have the usual assorted jobbing genocide-deniers giving their opinions. However, in all likelihood they took as their inspiration on this issue the 1983 "The Talat Pasha “Telegrams”: Historical fact or Armenian fiction?" book by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca that is extensively discussed and dissected by Akcam. So I suggest that this 1983 source is the primary initiator of recent debates over authenticity and so should begin the section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is pretty astonishing that the 1983 Orel and Yuca source "Ermenilerce Talat Pasa’ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Gercek Yüzü" is not mentioned anywhere in the article (I see from past talk it had been, but was removed). At 344 pages, and published by the Turkish Historical Society, it is the primary source of all the later claims of inauthenticity (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/andonian.htm makes that clear). The English edition, from 1986, is by K. Rustem & Bro. (this North Cyprus based publisher produced on behalf of the Turkish government many English-language genocide denialist tracts in the 1980s that were redistributed by various Turkish lobby groups to influence public opinion - Kamuran Gurun's "The Armenian File" being the most widespread). We cannot have that source removed and all the jobbing deniers' opinions remain because they are basing their opinions on the claims made in the Orel and Yuca source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored a mention of the Orel and Yuca book - it is obviously not possible to mention Akcam's book without mentioning the book whose contents and claims Akcam's book was written to examine. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, please do name one serious scholar that thinks that the texts are fakes. The serious scholars that are mentioned are either Turkologists, biographers of Ataturk or work for Turkish universities. I can hardly see their work on the subject as impartial - also, many of them deny the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide, which has nothing to do with the document in question. --92slim (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope to gradually work more on this article, in light of the findings in the recent Akcam publication. Since it deals with disproving the findings and allegations in the Orel and Yuca source, the opinions in that earlier source have to be detailed (even though it is an AG denialist source). I expect that all those inverted comma serious scholars are just parroting Orel and Yuca (Lewy certainly is, though ignoring the more extreme forms of it - Lewy admits to "massacres", Orel and Yuca deny even those happened). If the other "serious scholars" cited in the article are also citing Orel and Yuca as the source of and justification for their opinions, that needs to be made clear in the text (so an editor with access to these sources is needed). The denial of the AG is connected to these documents because they are used as a centerpiece of the denialist claims (that they were invented in order to prove an even bigger invention, the AG, actually happened). I don't think they have been particularly important in proving the AG, and don't seem to have been mentioned much in AG literature before Turkey in the 1980s decided to allege that these telegrams formed almost the entire evidence for the AG "allegation". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely correct. It's interesting how this document, which now appears to be legitimate, is not an important piece of evidence, and was actually used merely as a tool for denial. The Armenian Genocide, like other genocides, such as the Rwandan Genocide or the Holocaust or any other crimes against humanity was not usually proved at first with official documents but photographic/audiovisual evidence, eyewitness accounts and of special importance were documents and statements from diplomatic sources. This one was committed mainly against the civilian population, who were in many instances acquainted, protected and in many cases (such as the US and France) rescued by foreign embassies, who knew exactly what was happening at the time. --92slim (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)