Talk:Yenovk Shahen

Genocide Source
It's said that he is killed in a genocide according to Armenian sources. Is it right to ground these claims on national arrangements?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "national arrangements"? Are you in anyway insisting that just because a source is Armenian that it shouldn't be considered reliable? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Balakian is a bishop and Saryan is an activist(i guess- no source) 1) I don't think an encyclopedian can trust any religious officials or national fanatics. 2)Why is all genocide subjects rely on Armenian sources? 3) It's hard to verify those books which isn't published online. Is there any database for these?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Studies on the Armenian Genocide are not only in Armenian sources. It's an internationally recognized event in modern academia and the international world. It's not just a course in an Armenian studies program. The world accepts it as a fact and more importantly, the consensus of the academic world today never questions the Armenian Genocide as a real event. If it is to be questioned, that'll be suicide for any scholar. As for Balakain, just because he's is a Bishop doesn't mean he's unreliable. In fact, his memoirs are cited by many scholars including David Crowe, Ugur Ümit Üngör, Mehmet Polatel, Michael Reynolds, and Joseph Cummins; all of whom are respectable academics in their field. If these scholars can cite Grigoris Balakian, so can we. Also, there are other contemporaneous reports on his murder including "Journal of a Journey to the Near East" by Walter George Smith (1919) which is also published in the Armenian Review peer-reviewed journal in 1971. As for Saryan, you can't dismiss someone because he's an "activist" or by calling him a "national fanatic" just because he doesn't fall within your POV. Even if that were the case, he's still a respectable academic in his field. The Armenian Review is a peer-reviewed journal so there is very little room to question its reliability. We can be rest-assured that third-party reviewers have meticulously checked the source for its validity and representation. Besides, those two sources aren't the only sources used to justify the murder of Yenovk Shahen. There's many scholars in both Turkey and abroad that openly talk about the murder of young Shahen. Here's a couple published in Turkey:
 * Evrim Kaya:


 * Pars Tuglaci listed his murder among others on page 86 of his book Örnek bir Osmanlı vatandaşı Kirkor Zohrab Efendi.


 * ...And these are Turkish sources alone. The sources used in the article were used because it provided added detail to his murder in which no other source provides. If you want to view the sources, such as Walter George Smith's or Saryan's yourself, you can request them WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For sure he's dead. All other sources say it, but no more. We can't verify that he's a genocide victim. There's a problem with that. He died in exile but not because he's just Armenian. Ottomans has never got national. They were just monarchs striving to maintain strength. History never recorded a national emphasis for Ottomans.

Armenian claims need questioning for Armenians' good. It's not like WW2. So many Armenians died but a lot more muslims died as well. It's a false deportation act. The government couldn't even feed its own officials that tens of thousands soldiers died without fighting. All the power of a nation, Armenia, concentrated to publicize a distorted memory. It's not about science. The world today, doomed to extinction because of so calleds scientists. I don't know if exclaiming a historical vagueness is good, while our days on earth abbreviated by dirty politics. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You're just making petty assumptions that have no support from contemporary scholarship. Shahen was just one of the hundreds of intellectuals, writers, poets, and bankers who went through the Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 and ultimately killed. Just like the other Armenians, he was arrested, deported into the interior provinces, incarcerated in prison, then removed from prison only to be killed alongside his kinsmen. Does this sound like the life of any other Turk during that time? Your personal observations are wrong on so many levels. "Ottomans has never got national"? I suppose you mean Ottomans were never nationalistic. That's far from the truth. The Committee of Union and Progress is known to be a highly nationalist oriented party that came into power because former politicians weren't nationalist enough. The Muslims you say who died were those who voluntarily or involuntarily fought in the war effort. This included Armenians as well. But their numbers didn't even reach the number of Christian deaths. And unlike the Turks, the Armenians had to go through another trauma specially designed for them. That was the deportation of their men, women, children to the deserts of Syria without any sort of government provisions, housing, food, or safety. The survivors of these deportees were ultimately massacred when they reached their final destination. Again, does this sound like something a Muslim Turk went through? I suggest you read the following articles, Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide, Press coverage during the Armenian Genocide, and I suggest you read the following books Raymond Kevorkian's The Armenian Genocide and Taner Akcam's Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials. If you want these books I can e-mail them to you. As for this discussion, I have nothing left to say. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)