Talk:Talaat Pasha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Also

There has been discussion elsewhere of telegrams by Talat, has nay one a source for this?\

At the bottom of the page is a link to alleged telegrams by Talat Pasha. The site explicitly mentions that the authenticity of them is disputed, and leaves the viewer to draw their own conclusions. The link is not in any way used as a reference for the article, just something that might be of interest to Wikipedia readers. -- Augustgrahl 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See also section

I have trimmed this per WP:GTL. Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I'm completely in favour of merging, but am not quite sure what the new name should be. My Fromkin (ISBN 0805008578) calls him Mehmed Talaat Bey. Bey or Pasha does not really matter to me but I do think Talaat should have the two a's. Illustir 21:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Bey" is a title, roughly "prince", though more by appointment than lineage; titles are not usually included in article names..Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm completely in favour of merging, but am not quite sure what the new name should be. My Fromkin (ISBN 0805008578) calls him Mehmed Talaat Bey. Bey or Pasha does not really matter to me but I do think Talaat should have the two a's. Illustir 21:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Bey" is a title, roughly "prince", though more by appointment than lineage; titles are not usually included in article names..Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

POV template

I wound up here through a link in World War I and read the article partly out of curiosity as to who the last Grand Vizier of the Sultanate was; the tone and style and some wordings and a bit of "opinionation" led me to the talkpage, where I noted the absence of WP:Turkey, which partly explains the Armenian-bias of the contents; I also added WP:History. I don't have any immediate fixes but participation from WP:Turkey and hopefully attention from WP:Bio in response to the POV template may bring some efforts to reduce the tone of invective and demonization which I feel the article currently has.Skookum1 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That hardly seems like a justifiable reason. It seems to me that if it is only wording you were concerned about, you would just fix it yourself (in fact, point them out and I will fix them). And while I do appreciate your attempts to bring consensus-formed neutrality to the article, I do ask that you be careful and do not start another edit war. The Myotis (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it seems there was no WP:Turkey presence in the formation of the article in its current state, and the article is about a Turk, and it was only part of WP:Armenia, as far as national-WPs go, it's not an edit war i was looking for. As an "outsider" all I saw was an article which seemed more to attack than recount, and which did not read like other bio articles; I don't know enough about the events and other personages in question to make wording fixes, but I do know "slanted content" when I see it. And when I saw that, again, even though he was a Turk, there was no Turkish presence on the talkpage......it's not like a bio of a German officer should only be written by the French or the Israelis...or a history of an Armenian official in the Ottoman Empire should only have a WP:Turkey template/input. It doesn't sound balanced, and that's that. If you can't admit to that, then that implies that you have a POV and aren't interested in the Turkish side of the bio.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you have rather quickly settled on your conclusion. However, if you will check the edit log, you will see that quite a few turkish-oriented editors have indeed placed their input, and the same can be said for this talkpage if you read through it. Sadly, a fair number of said contributions have had been removed for exactly the reasons you cite (POV), being that the 'turkish side' has, so far, composed of little more than ahistorical ranting and editwarring. However, if some courteous and dialog-capable WP:Turkey and WP:History wish to discuss wording, I welcome them. The Myotis (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the template - no examples of the alleged lack of neutrality are provided, so it has no validity. It is a strange assertion to make that an article is biased just because someone or some group has, allegedly, not contributed to it! Persomally, I think there is some serious anti-academic and anti-Armenian bias in the article, but if I ever get round to adding a POV tag I'll be sure to cite actual examples in the text to prove its validity. Meowy 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I'm removing it. Nobody is really arguing the neutrality of the article, besides a bizaare comment about an international conspiracy against the Turkish people. Augustgrahl 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

here is another killer from the million tuks killers

really you have any doubt about that talat commited genocide?then the neutrality that you believe that exist is not neutrality but exactly the opposite.anyway where do you see the conpiracy against your turkish friends?because till today they suppress the rights of the minorities in turkey?even their own people dissgree with that(see orhan pamuk)who was in trial because he had his opinion to write about the genocide of armenians.dont you even heard then the french government is ready to accept in the parlament the genocide ? im sorry but you really dont know the history so the beeter you should do is to start read with your eyes open in order to see the crimea turks have commited during their history even in the recent days

I am not disputing that Talat Pasha planned a genocide against the Armenian people, or that the Turkish government forcibly suppresses opinions contrary to its views of history. I simply questioned why there should be a neutrality tag when nobody was seriously discussing the neutrality of the article. -- Augustgrahl 15:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough people are arguing the neutrality of the article but somehow their comments and changes are deleted everytime. This biography about Talat Pasha is set up for the single purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide. There are lies told in this article and any changes or comments however well sourced are reversed to the desired pro-armenian form. Any change properly sourced should remain. This is wikipedia not some nationalist armenian website. Learn some manners please. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not having any doubt that Talat planned a genocide against the Armenians is enough proof that you shouldn't be allowed to edit on wikipedia. You are biased. You should always stay open for information and having doubt is a sign of intelligence and honesty. You can't just disregard and delete information that doesn't fit your agenda. The only thing you can do is come with verifiable information yourself that counters the given information. If these Andonian papers resurfaced and if after close examination they were proven to be authentic then I would even be glad for the information. At least the discussion would end and Turks wouldn't feel attacked if they were confronted with the Armenian genocide. They could just say, yes it is true. So many nations have criminal pasts and they are not nearly as often attacked as turkey. In every discussion with a Turk the Armenian genocide is brought up. For example in Holland government officials of Turkish origin are threatened now to be thrown out of the government if they deny the Armenian genocide. How can you expect from a Turk who hasn't committed or witnessed the genocide to accept the Armenian genocide as true just because the Europeans and Americans say it is true? There is no conclusive evidence about the Armenian genocide like there is with the holocaust (Auschwitz, furnaces etc). In turkey the history taught in school is very different from the history that is taught in Europe and that is normal. Every country has its own view on events. For a Turk demanding/forcing that they accept the genocide is an insult. I don't say that the Armenian genocide didn't happen. I just say that after a century nobody has been able to come up with conclusive evidence that the ottoman government ordered the Armenians to be exterminated. Why should a contemporary Turk then accept the Armenian genocide? Even if the Armenian genocide was true you can't blame a Turk for not accepting it. There is no proof and with the information we have it would be treason/idiocy to accept the Armenian genocide.

It is true that Turkey has a lot of issues with their minority and it is also true that they are very oppressive about different opinions but that still doesn't proof the Armenian genocide. Nobody said Turkey was the most democratic country in the world. Don't forget how people were treated in the USA for being a communist and having a different opinion, don't forget also how the minorities (native americans) in the USA are treated. A lot of countries have issues like that and we should all try to improve our countries. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone please help with Revert War

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Tealwisp (talk) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

See this discussion on the Mediation Cabal case talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IAGS statement affirming the Armenian Genocide [1]

The IAGS has no legal authority or any other authority. They are simply a group of scholars who have investigated a (very limited) number of genocides and have made statements about their investigations and have sent letters to editors, ministers etc. Since their foundation in 1994 they haven't done that much investigation (except against the ottoman empire). I don't see any statement on their website [2] about the bosnian, palestinian or most of the numerous other accusations of genocide. Pretty weak. The only institution I know that has the authority to give the genocide verdict (term was coined in 1944) is the international court of justice (also called world court), which is the judicial organ of the UN. This institution was founded in 1945 (after holocaust) and as far as I know doesn't take cases that took place before that date. Even if they did take the case they would almost certainly reject the armenian genocide accusation, because like any other court they need hard proof beyond doubt to give a verdict. Believe me that they are very strict in their demand for proof. [3] Since there is no proof that the ottoman government gave orders that armenian civilians were to be exterminated there is basically no case. The documents of the ottoman government only talk about the arrest of members of the dashnak and hunchak separatist groups [4]. Talat Pasha even admitted that the relocation/tehcir caused the death of many armenians. He said that scared/stressed civilians, bandits and looters had attacked armenian civilians and said that he took some action against it but not enough. [5] This does not prove the ottoman government committed genocide though.

I admit also that the deportation was not carried out lawfully everywhere. In some places unlawful acts were committed. The already existing hatred among the Armenians and Mohammedans, intensified by the barbarous activities of the former, had created many tragic consequences. Some of the officials abused their authority, and in many places people took preventive measures into their own hands and innocent people were molested. I confess it. I confess, also, that the duty of the Government was to prevent these abuses and atrocities.or at least to hunt down and punish their perpetrators severely. In many places, where the property and goods of the deported people were looted, and the Armenians molested, we did arrest those who were responsible and punished them according to the law. I confess, however, that we ought to have acted more sternly, opened up a general investigation for the purpose of finding out all the promoters and looters and punished them severely. [6]

I don't understand what the goal is by trying to make contemporary turkey and contemporary turks admit to a genocide they didn't commit. Turkey is not the ottoman empire. The ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire which dissoluted into several countries. Turks were also not the only ones who committed war crimes against the armenians. Most crimes were committed by local kurdish, circassian and arab militia's/bandits and by kurdish, turkish and arab civilians. The armenians themselves were also not so innocent since the separatist groups aided the russians and attacked the ottomans from behind the lines. The russians, europeans, armenians and the other (kurdish, turkish, arab) ottomans all played their part in the build up to the relocations and massacres. Why then accuse only turkey of the genocide? Why not also accuse Syria or Iraq who also had inhabitants who committed war crimes against armenians? Or russia who set the armenians up against the ottomans? Or the armenian dashnak and hunchak groups who left the ottomans no other choice but relocating the armenians? Why accuse turkey at all? As I already said turkey is not the ottoman empire and the persons responsible for the alleged genocide are not alive anymore.

So what is the purpose of these accusations. The persons murdered and the persons doing the murdering do not live anymore. There isn't the slightest chance of getting turkey convicted of the genocide. Any documents that could prove it were either destroyed or have never existed. For 90 years all the accusations haven't resulted in anything. The Permanent Court of International Justice which was the predecessor of the ICJ didn't take action against turkey in 1923 when both turkey (1923) and the PCIJ (1922) were formed. Any accusations and/or conviction of a genocide should have been made then. They did handle the lotus case so why not the armenian genocide? If what the armenians say is true then the ottoman government did an incredible job of destroying all the evidence of the genocide. If that was the case and 90 years later turks, who were raised with "the lie" that the ottoman government didn't comit the genocide, deny the genocide can you blame them then for it? Would you admit to a genocide you didn't commit and there is no proof your country did? If not, stop harassing innocent people.

Anyway there is no conclusive proof that the ottoman government ordered the genocide, no court verdict has ever been given, most countries do not recognize the genocide and several countries such as UK, sweden, denmark, israel, bulgaria and azerbaijan actively rejected genocide recognition bills and many scholars dispute the genocide. All of this is enough to at least justify the word "alleged" in front of genocide since it is not a proven fact but an allegation/accusation. Strictly speaking, even the word genocide shouldn't be used here since it was coined in 1944 and was a term/verdict given by the ICJ, therefore it can't be applied to massacres before 1945. Do we speak about a native-american genocide, african genocide or inca genocide? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How dare you remove someone elses comments!!

03:11, 22 March 2009 Meowy (talk | contribs) (41,772 bytes) (→IAGS statement affirming the Armenian Genocide [7]: Off topic material removed - belongs on the AG talk page.) (undo)

What do you mean by off topic material. Didn't kansas bear revert my contribution by claiming that IAGS's confirmation of the genocide justified it? [8] I have the right to respond to that. Since you introduced the armenian genocide to this article, you shouldn't be surprised if armenian genocide related topics are discussed here. You can't tell people that they can only talk about the armenian genocide on the armenian genocide article itself when everywhere on wikipedia you present the armenian genocide as an established proven fact. It is not! It is already bad enough that you guys removed every little piece of information that even questions whether the armenian genocide was really a genocide committed by the ottoman government. By making a genocide recognition article and a genocide denial article and banishing every denial/doubt material to the denial page you basically created POV fork. All relevant viewpoints should be given in an article. You can't decide that the armenian genocide article should only give the pro-recognition view and the denial article should only give the denial view. The article is about the armenian genocide and should represent both views. What you are doing here is a violation of wikipedia rules. Taking into consideration how many times you have been blocked, restricted from editing and your uncivil and racist remarks, I am surprised that you aren't permanently banned from wikipedia. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another breach of etiquette. Cheers deleted my comments on the talk page which was an answer to Kansas Bears reversions for which he used the IAGS's resolution on the armenian genocide. I am totally on topic and in my right when I answered that the IAGS has no authority whatsoever and that the only institution that has the right to give a genocide verdict is the International Court of Justice. Removing my comments is pure vandalism. There was no personal attacks or threat to anyone, only indignation that someone has the nerve to remove someone else's ontopic comments. Hence the "How dare you remove someone elses comments!!" I don't know what right you have to make the massive amounts of reverts and warnings you give each day, but I don't see on your user page that you are an administrator. If you were, you wouldn't have made these inappropriate deletions here or the warnings on my talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Mehmed Talat. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. Cheers Kyle1278 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not correct comments can be removed if they are an attack or a threat which your seems to be "how dare you" is an example Wikipedia is not a battle ground it is for nice calm talk which you did not contribute to. Cheers Kyle1278 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim4048 (talk • contribs)

Tealwisp's "mediation", his edits here, and his encouragement of Ibrahim4048

Words actually fail me - someone else please take it up. If they are disputing the reality of, or the methodology of, the Armenian Genocide then would they please do it on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article. Content on a minor Wikipedia article cannot contradict the content of the subject's "parent" article. This article's talk page, or "mediation" pages related to disputes about this article, are not suitable places for discussing broad issues about the Armenian Genocide. Only specific content issues concerning the connection between Mehmet Talat and the Armenian Genocide should be discussed here (and even then, the end result should not contradict content on the main article). Meowy 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether it is acceptable to affirm the Genocide as disputed or to consider such viewpoints as fringe theory under WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, I pander to no one. Also, this article can contradict the "main article," as the article on the Armenian Genocide is not the parent; this is not a subpage. He is notable as a Vizier of the Ottoman Empire at its decline. Lastly, the only edit I made was one that I proposed during mediation as a neutral ground, to which no one objected. You did not respond at all to it. Tealwisp (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I already told you, before you created your silly "neutral ground" concoction, that I was not participating in "arbitration" that has no validity. Your continued ignorance about Wikipedia is astonishing. This article cannot contradict a subject's primary article. The "dispute" (actually POV waring by a single editor) has nothing to do with Talat, it concerns the Armenian Genocide. Broad issues about the Armenian Genocide cannot be decided or discussed in this page. Meowy 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not go with that neutral ground? It avoids mentioning genocide at all. Tealwisp (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your ego is getting out of control! There are nineteen, I repeat NINETEEN, pages of talk on the Armenian Genocide article. The article itself has more footnotes and references than just about any other Wikipedia article. Have you, with your aspirations to be an mediator, made a single contribution there? Have you even read any of it? Yet you have the audacity to think you are suddenly an expert on this subject, and able to contradict content that those 19 pages and countless editors helped to create. Meowy 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I never called myself an expert, nor am I aiming to do more, here and now, than help to settle a dispute. Furthermore, I keep my ego in real life alone. Also, I am not attempting to contradict anyone; I am trying to form a compromise. Tealwisp (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A compromise is not something that says "2+2=5", or says "2+2 allegedly makes 4", or decides that the subject of what 2+2 may equal should not be mentioned in an article concerning arithmetic. Your problem is that you are trying to settle a dispute that does not exist. There is no dispute about 2+2 equaling 4, and there is no dispute that the Armenian Genocide is not alleged and that Talat Pasha's part in it was notable. You should have seen right at the start that the core aim of Ibrahim4048 was to dispute the reality of the Armenian Genocide, primarily by the insertion of the word "alleged" into the article. Then you should have realised, via a cursory glance at some of the other AG-related pages on Wikipedia, that Ibrahim4048's core aim was not an acceptable one to be pursued through this article, and was thus not a matter for mediation. Meowy 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything"

The citation takes it to some letter to a olitiains, without giveing the orginal source. Can some one verfiy the orginal source? --SolDrury 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't get a definitive source of the quote, but it was cited by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Given that the quote is of uncertain authenticity but was used by an official of the U.S. government, I have changed the text to say that it has been alleged Talat said this. -- Augustgrahl 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used as a source for information by many people and should therefore give unbiased accurate information, not politically biased propaganda. If you want the truth about the Armenian Genocide you shouldn't first decide it is true and then try to produce evidence. The Armenian Genocide might be true, partially true or not true at all. You should first look for evidence and then draw a conclusion. In this case the evidence is very flimsy if not existent. It is not a proven fact that Talaat Pasha said these things, there is great controversy about the truth of these accusations. The Andonian papers where he is alleged to have said these things are not in the possession of anyone (in other words they have never existed or have been destroyed/hidden). The fact that these papers although in possession of Europe (France and England) were never used as evidence in court and somehow got lost is very peculiar. Wouldn't you use such strong evidence in court if you had it and wouldn't you be more careful with such strong evidence? My opinion is that they were forgeries and that they were "lost" because any investigation would proof they were forgeries. By losing the Andonian papers they could at least keep the myth alive of evidence of an order of genocide by a high ranking ottoman official. The fact that it is now used as proof on wikipedia shows they succeeded. The Andonian papers were allegedly collected by a Naim Bey who is said to have been an ottoman official whose existence is also not proven. Nowhere in the ottoman records is there such a person. That is very strange because the ottomans kept record of everything and everyone in their empire. Turkish scholars have given proof that these documents couldn't have been authentic and therefore the least you could do is say that Talaat Pasha "allegedly" said these things if not just erase this accusation altogether.

• The signature of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey (the governor of Aleppo) does not jibe with actual specimens of the governor's signature.

• There are date mistakes as result of lack of knowledge of the differences between the Ottoman and European calendar. These errors destroy the system of dates and reference numbers that were used by the draftsman of the documents for his documents.

• The dates and reference numbers that are found in the Ottoman ministry of the interior's registers of outgoing ciphered telegrams reveals that the reference numbers used on Andonian's documents bear no relationship to the actual reference numbers used on ciphered telegrams sent from Constantinople to Aleppo in the period in question.

• All but two documents are written on plain paper with none of the signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman government during World War I.

• There are mistakes in grammar and languages that only a non-Turkish writer would make.[7] Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are citations in the text to both support and deny the quote. As such, it should probably be integrated into the rest of the article, as it doesn't fit in the lead anyway. Tealwisp (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed entirely. And it currently is - I know, because I removed it. Meowy 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Guenter Lewy

Along with the fringe theory, Guenter Lewy is a political scientist NOT a historian. The NEUTRAL SOURCES[9],[10],[11], presented, clearly outweigh the fringe theory of a political scientist. As stated here:[12], this fringe theory should not be presented on this article, since it gives it undue weight. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of discussing this. The official stance of several European countries (Denmark, United Kingdom, Sweden, and Bulgaria) that rejected the Armenian genocide recognition and the view of academics/historians is NOT a FRINGE THEORY. They give valid reasons why they don't recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide. I have given these reasons to you countless times. You don't have to agree with them, everybody can have their own opinion. But don't pretend the dispute doesn't exist or try to ridicule the dispute as fringe theory. Fringe theory is something outrageous, highly speculative with no evidence at all such as believing earth is flat or that aliens have taken over the world. The Armenian genocide skepticism is not speculative and there is plenty of evidence for it. I don't mean the denial that Armenian civilians died but the denial that the Ottoman Empire had the intention to exterminate the Armenians and took actions to accomplish that. They simply look at the same (established) facts from a different point of view.

The word genocide was coined in 1948 for the case of the holocaust and there are criteria which have to be fulfilled to be able to use that term in other massacres/genocides. These criteria are not met in the Armenian genocide case. Besides, neither the Permanent Court of International Justice (formed in 1922) nor the International Court of Justice , which are the only institutions which can give the genocide verdict, have ruled against turkey (formed in 1923). That alone justifies using "alleged" in front of genocide. That's how law works, innocent until proven guilty.

If you want I can give you (again and again) the differences between the holocaust/Jewish genocide and the Armenian massacres of 1915. The Nazi’s had a clear racist doctrine and had the obvious intention to exterminate the Jews. Even outside Europe they persecuted the Jews. There is no doubt to the intention of the Nazi’s nor does Germany itself deny the holocaust. The young Turks had no such racist or religious doctrine. The Young Turks were in the process of modernizing the Ottoman Empire and were trying to make it secular (Turkey is secular now). This would have greatly improved the position of Christian and Jewish minorities (which was better by the way than that of blacks in the USA even until the 1960’s for example). It is not a surprise then that Jews and Christians initially supported the young Turks and joined their ranks. Many of the Armenians, Greeks and Jews got positions inside the Young Turk Party and Ottoman Military. This alone proves that the young Turks were neither racist nor religiously fanatic. Unfortunately the Ottoman Empire was dragged into World War 2 (Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau) and the Armenians influenced and supported by the Russians didn't wait for the reforms/secularism but chose to take the opprtunity to revolt and establish their own nation. It is common knowledge that these separatist groups existed and had ties with the Russians. Even the Armenians themselves don’t deny the existence of these separatist groups.

The meddling of the Russians, the national aspirations/revolts of the Armenians (and of course the oppression of sultan Abdul Hamid which caused the Armenian revolts) soured the relations between the Armenians and the young Turks. Several Historians also pointed out that the Armenian civilians in Istanbul and Izmir were not relocated (except for the dashnak and hunchak ringleaders). These Armenians, who lived in Istanbul, lived near the power centre of the Ottoman Empire and had strong positions in the Ottoman Empire. Logically they were less problematic and supporting towards the young Turks reforms. This indicates the relocation had more to do with the threat Armenian separatist groups posed to the Ottoman Empire than the supposed intention of the young Turks to exterminate the Armenian race.

I can understand why the Armenians revolted against the Ottoman Empire but I can also understand the actions the ottomans took to survive as a nation/people. If they hadn't relocated the Armenians, probably the Turks would now be the ones without land and be a minority in Armenia, Greece and the Arab countries. The ottomans were weakened and had to fight on several fronts against Europe and even their own revolting subjects, they just couldn't let the Armenians pose a threat by leaving them where they were. The massacres on Armenian civilians by ottoman civilians, militia's and bandits, however wrong they were, can also be explained by this fear and hate the ottomans had of the approaching Russians, English, French and revolting Armenians. In war crimes as these are committed. That is what war brings. The same thing is happening now in Iraq. The hate against Americans/Christians is projected against the Christian minorities in Iraq. Also many of those Christian minorities collaborate with the Americans for financial gain or as a result of the oppression of their Muslim neighbours. The Muslims see the Christian minorities as traitors and the Christians see the Muslims as murderers who leave them no choice but to collaborate against them or to emigrate to Europe/America. It all depends from what point of view you look at it. But one thing is clear for me. Almost every conflict in the world/middle east (directly or indirectly) relates back to Europe or America. They are the ones who profit most of each conflict/war. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was reported several times to the administrator’s noticeboard for allegedly making disruptive edits to this article. I have explained why I made these edits (putting allegedly in front of genocide and demanding that if the memoirs of naim bey are used that it is also said that their authenticity is disputed) and have given references for my claim that the genocide is not an established fact like the holocaust is. I think my explanation was good enough because obviously no action was taken against me. This is what was decided in this matter.

Without reviewing the mediation, I would comment that Wikipedia does not have a remit to take a stand over a matter; it follows what reputable sources report, and within that context give due weight to conflicting references. The ArbCom has previously decided, in this matter, that some editors are not editing with regard to due weight and it needs to be shown that this is again happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where this arbcom decision was taken? I already asked meowy several times whether wikipedia had made a decision to recognize the genocide. I am new to wikipedia and don't know my way around here and also don't know many of the terms that are used. Does arbcom mean arbitrary commission? Can you provide a link to the decision that was made? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The two cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I would comment that the Arbitration Committee (or ArbCom for short) did not say that the fact of the massacre was recognized, but that appropriate weight should be given according to the references provided that did, or did not, note the massacre. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given enough reasons, evidence and references that this genocide is disputed. Just read through this talk page or the mediation page to see the referenced material that proves it is disputed.

The term genocide was created for the purposes of being able to give a new kind of verdict in (the world) court. Just like other terms such as homicide etc there are criteria that have to be met to be able to call it a genocide. The evidence for these criteria was never met and therefore a verdict has never been given by institutions such as the Permanent Court of International Justice or the International Court of Justice.

You guys are right that most western people do recognize the genocide but that doesn't mean that it is an established fact. Most western people not so long ago also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, posed a threat and should be stopped. We now know how that turned out. The opinion of the people is just sentiment and a result of media propaganda. It is not surprising that pro recognition view is strong after almost a century of lobbying for recognition by Armenians. You have to be careful to only form an opinion to established facts. According to academic/judicial standards there simply is no conclusive proof for an attempt by the ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian race. This lack of evidence and the fact that turkey was never condemned by the Permanent Court of International Justice for having committed a genocide is proof enough that it is not an established fact.

Ad to that, that most countries do not recognize or outright reject the genocide and that a number of academics/historians have done research about the genocide and came to the conclusion that the criteria for genocide are not met. You can try to discredit these countries and academics/historians but that doesn't change the fact that this view exists, is not a small minority view and is well referenced/argumentated by genocide skeptics.

If you guys despite my references and argumentation deny the possibility that the genocide was not exactly like Armenians said it happened and deny my right to give information on wikipedia by making referenced edits you are trying to push a POV. Deleting referenced material that is not fringe theory or undue weight is vandalism. I have proven that having doubts about whether the ottomans had the intention to exterminate the Armenian race, that possibly the Armenian deaths were more a result of the war, starvation and the civil fights between Muslim and Christian civilians rather than like the Armenians claim a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Armenian race by the ottoman government. Trying to look at things from another perspective or looking at underlying causes for actions taken by the ottomans is not fringe theory. That is research. Nothing wrong with that. You can still form your own opinion about the genocide but that is all it is. An opinion. With the current (lack of) evidence nothing more than opinion is possible. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"possibly the Armenian deaths were more a result of the war, starvation and the civil fights between Muslim and Christian civilians" – possible but unlikely. For it to be true, many contemporaneous eyewitness accounts from credible sources and most scholarship since then would have to be wrong. Well-sourced accounts of fringe views should go into Denial of the Armenian Genocide, where they belong.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see missionaries and emissaries as reliable sources, especcially if they are from countries (UK, France etc) the ottomans were at war with. They have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be seen as reliable sources, simply because they are representatives of hostile countries. Missionaries and emissaries have historically always played a role as spies and the source for rebellions in various countries and empires. It is ridiculous by the way to only see european and armenian sources as reliable. What about the turkish, kurdish, arab and various other eyewitnesses? Those eyewitness accounts you do not accept. Turkish historians, sources and newspapers are rejected because they are supposedly unreliable but nothing is apparently wrong with european or armenian sources. Even european newspapers like the NY times [13] (asia minor section) that prove armenians attacked muslim civilians even before the Armenian-Hamidieh Conflicts and were egged up by the russians are not accepted. Why only accept sources that prove the armenian genocide but not those who disprove the premeditated nature of it and give proof of attacks of armenian terrorist/separatist groups? This double standard damages the reliability/credibility of wikipedia.

As long as there are no documents that prove that the ottoman government ordered the killing of armenians you cannot claim that talat pasha's "request for the tehcir law initiated the massacres[2][3] of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population", at least you should accept alleged in front of it if not erase it completely. That is giving wrong information even if you do recognize the armenian genocide because contrary to the relocation/tehcir there is absolutely no proof that the ottoman government ordered the massacres. The massacres were not committed by ottoman troops but by local civilians, militias and bandits. The massacres and the relocation are two separate things. Genocide proponents claim that massacres had been committed by local militia's and bandits and that the ottoman government secretly ordered the massacres and backed these local kurdish, arab and turkmen militias/bandits, they also claim that the relocation which was ordered by the government and carried out by the military caused the death of most armenians that were deported and essentially that was also genocide.

You can use the claim that the relocation resulted in a genocide and use the word genocide instead of massacre but then you have the problem that a genocide verdict was never given by the institution (Permanent Court of International Justice) that could have given that verdict or you can use massacres but then you can't link it to talat pasha or the ottoman government because there is no proof that they ordered the massacres. Even if the relocation was not ordered there would still have been clashes between the armenian population and the massacres would still have occured, only probably in that case it would be the armenians committing the massacres and the muslim population the victims since muslim men were mostly fighting on the front and only armenians (who as christians didn't serve in the army) and nomadic/tribal peoples had their men with them. How can you deny that both the armenian and muslim populations were frightened/angry and that the massacres (turks claim that armenian separatist groups also committed massacres and terrorist attacks) were more likely the result of these tensions between the population than a supposed secret order (it must have been secret because to this day no such orders were found and turkey denies that such orders were given) from the government. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Refering to other editors clearly good faith edits as "vandalism" makes you look really, really bad. Second, the external link you include in your addition (I presume as a source, just not formatted as one?) is to "Middle East Forum", who says about themselves: "The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East.". That doesn't make them seem like much of a reliable source. Dendlai (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the world as it is currently, being middle eastern is enough to make you look bad. You don't even have to be muslim, just having a middle eastern name and look is enough. Unless you hang a cross around your neck people will hate you and even then you will still remain a "christenturk" in the eyes of westerners.

You are using the classic tactic of trying to make the other side seem unreliable. Yes, the link is to the Middle East Forum but the article is written by Guenter Lewy as a response to Vahakn Dadrian. The Middle East Forum is only a vehicle/publisher of Guenter Lewy's article just like the University of Utah was a vehicle/publisher of his book "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide". Would you say the that the university of Utah is also unreliable? They published exactly the same material. If you have a problem with the Middle East Forum, I can give other references and sources. There is contrary to what you belief no shortage of historians who dispute (aspects of) the armenian genocide.

If I give referenced information on wikipedia that is obviously reliable and it is removed, that is plain vandalism. You can have your opinion and give your pro-recognition information on wikipedia but you cannot keep me from giving valid properly sourced information. The administrators board clearly said that they do not necessarily recognize the fact of the armenian genocide and that any information could be given if properly sourced and given due weight. I have shown that this view is the offcial stance of the uk, denmark, sweden, bulgaria etc and that except for 21 countries most of the countries in the world do not recognize the genocide. There are numerous historians who dispute (aspects of) the armenian genocide. The reasons for this skepticism is also very clear. They do not dispute the fact that armenian civilians died as a result of the relocation, general food shortage or murder during world war 1, they dispute the accusation that there was a premeditated attempt to exterminate the armenian race. Since there is absolutely no evidence for orders of the ottoman government to exterminate/attack armenian civilians, except for the memoirs of naim bey which was never used in court and afterwards somehow lost by the armenians/europeans (probably to hide that they were forgeries after critcism arose), this is a good point. The fact that armenians need forgeries to prove this says enough. In contrast to the accusation of premeditated intention for exterminating the armenian race all the sources that exist deny such an intention and only speak of arrests of armenian separatist ringleaders and the relocation of the armenian population [14] [15]. How is this a fringe theory? They base their view on the lack of evidence for a premeditated extermination of armenians. In the case of the holocaust on the jews there was no such lack of evidence or denial by germany for an attempt to exterminate the jews. That's why denial of the holocaust is fringe theory and denial/skepticism of the armenian genocide is not fringe theory. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out that the source you used is a think-tank that even claims to have an agenda. They don't even pretend to be objective, neutral and whatnot. That is why it isn't a reliable source. The other two sources you provided to me were to wikisource (a wiki, eh? Per definition unreliable), and they purport to show some original documents, which would require some OR or at least synthesis to be used the way you want, being primary sources. The NY Times source you used was from 1851, and you used it in another attempt at original research and synthesis. Wikipedia doesn't do original research. This is why you are being roundly dismissed. Dendlai (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim, there are credible eyewitness accounts from Germans who were there to witness the events. Germany was Turkey's ally in the war. If you feel that Wikipedia does not yet adequately cover killings of ethnic Turks by ethnic Armenians, or that some Armenians were disloyal to the Ottomans and acting as a Fifth Column on behalf of Russian interests, then I would encourage you to make edits in WP articles so that these historical facts are properly represented. Come up with good sources and you can count on my support. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur

Talar Pasa with an inverted coma uner s is the right way. Talat Pasha would be ok. His murder and the racist court that tried his killer will be disputed for a long time to come. There was mass exodus of people and killings - at the beginning of that century - everywhere. Mainly people who was killed and driven out were Turks. The real genocide was comitted against the Turks by the Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, Russians, Armenians and Arabs and to them the only way to gain their independence was to kill Turks who were stereotyped as less then human to justify the killings.

This comment seems spurious throughout. Not getting into details, I have to ask: why are Romanians part of this fantasy? Dahn 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because during the Russo-Turkish War, Romania fought on the Russian side? Just a guess. --Lambiam^Talk 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, but the reason the Romanians fought along with the Russians was most likely because they( the Romanians) were Russian citizens, and fulfilling their duty as male Russians by fighting in their military. The same thing occurred prior to the Armenian Genocide, and the Armenians were called traitors for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.110.137 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? the turkish government

Leader of Turkish Freemasonry

He was the leader of the Turkish Freemasonry(ÜSTÂD-I ÂZÂM)... Was he a Jew? a Dönmeh? Böri (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.masonmuzesi.org/buyuk.htm Böri (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved to Talaat Pasha, per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Mehmed Talat → Talat Pasha – per WP:COMMONNAME: GoogleBooks Ngram Viewer comparison. Takabeg (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, but how about Talaat Pasha, per David Fromkin, who is certainly consulting contemporary sources? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible. "Talaat Pasha" -Llc (1960-2011) 2,620 results / "Talat Pasha" -Llc (1960-2011) 1,400 results Takabeg (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the "same case" with Enver Pasha. Takabeg (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support for Talaat Pasha, it is I think the most familiar name. Constantine ✍ 16:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Assassination

This article has the bizarre claim that Talas was assasinated at the behest of British Intelligence. The source given for this claim is a work of state-produced propaganda - "The Armenian question - 1914-1923" - produced by the "Turkish Historical Society" as part of Turkey's campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide. Under that ideology, presumably, it would not have been possible for him to have been assasinated because of his part in the Armenian genocide because no genocide took place. Unless a neutral source is found backing up the claim, I will remove it. Meowy 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing that Armenians had an advance intelligence agency which managed to locate (a prime minister in escape), plan (find the place and opportunity) and perform (able to get close enough to use a face to face killing method, one bullet shot) in these world wide assassinations named Operation Nemesis? Are you saying that their operations were so advanced in 1920s that they can operate in many countries without the aid of any other intelligence agencies and perform assassinations under the clear sight of these states. --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are actually some interesting books on this written by the Armenian assassins themselves detailing some of the operations and logistics -- namely Arshavir Shiragian's The Legacy and Tehlirian's book translated into English by Avakian (The Cross and the Crescent). Serouj (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know your personal view, but assassinations planned and operated by an organized group of people falls into acts of terrorism. "Righteousness" (is there any act of terrorism which does not supported by internal values) does not change this fact, does it? By the way, there are many people who claim that they acted by themselves. They may sincerely believe that their actions were performed by their own means. With the help of God, they may pass through security checks, body guards, ... But the assassinated person was clearly under surveillance of not one but many state sponsored intelligence organizations. Can we use Armenian self-claims on reaching a final judgment? --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Assassination is "Murder of a public figure by surprise attack." See the difference? Serouj (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is a goal, which can be achived by many means. Use of violence can be achieved bombings, killings, surely assassinations. A group can kill one or more public (civilian ex-prime minister) figures (a calculated selection of people) to achieve political (such as revenge) goal. The killing of an ex-prime minister falls into "instilling a fear" to a group of people who once was represented by him. --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't his assassination by an Armenian Revolutionary Federation member tell an important reality; he was assassinated by the same organization that he tried to prevent their activities in 1915. His assassination gives a credible evidence that he was right in his conclusions regarding so called Armenian leaders and their behaviors declared in his order. He became another case of what is mentioned in the declaration. If you read his order regarding them, he claimed that they are killing (he defined them as murderers) subjects of the Empire. I carefully read your arguments regarding the acquired support, (knowingly or not-knowingly), by the other intelligence organizations. This argument does not change the major facts behind his assassination. These revolutionary parties, as he said in his declaration, blamed him for the failed united Armenia. It was a political assassination. Assassination is one of the methods in the arsenal of terrorism. If this organization's operation was really about the Armenian massacres, rather than killing Talat in a dark alley (this should not be taken literally), they would have brought him back to Istanbul. There was already a military tribunal in his name. Talat could have been humiliated in a real court. His guilt could have been proven publicly without leaving any suspicion for the future generations. It is easy to claim a person is guilty in his absentee. Sultan was ready to put this behind. He signed the final court order in his absentee. Why Armenians did not brought him to the court? I think that such a case would also brought the responsibility of Armenian Revolutionary Federation's role in the 1915's dreadful events. Semiha Berk (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Serouj, will you please cease the mindless reverting? On the Operation Nemesis talk page [[16]] you say you believe the claim that British intelligence services collaborated in assassinating Young Turk leaders to be false. Yet you have just reinserted, without giving any explanation, that same false claim into this article. By posting in this section of the talk page you must have read my explanation at the top of it for removing the claim, yet you conciously chose to ignore it, and also to ignore your own words written on that other talk page. Why? Please modify your behaviour. Meowy 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there an any article, which you can show us that has analyzed this contention of yours and prove to be false? Is there anything you can show us beyond what you "believe?" --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You and Serouj, best pals eh? I will state the facts quite simply - a propaganda text produced by the "Turkish Historical Society" as part of Turkey's campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide is not a credible source. Material that does not have a credible source can be challenged and removed. I challenged that source almost three months ago. Since then, nobody has presented a credible source containingthe same information. So the material can be removed. Meowy 03:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Donald M. Reid in the International Journal of African Historical Studies" is a credible source. It is in the text. The challenge works two ways. Is there any way we can verify a hunch of yours? --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Read what another editor has written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Nemesis#Questionable_Assertions Meowy 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The text included in this article does not include the claim "the only reasons why Armenians would assassinate Young Turk leaders is because they were put up to it by foreign intelligence services." That is the opposition stated in the link you provided. Also, the link is a personal view rather than a source of wp:verifiability. The text in the article claims, (a) Talat was under surveillance, (b) Talat claimed some goals directly opposing the policies of these agencies. (c) These intelligence agencies had either by passive (letting him killed under their eyes can be counted as a passive support) or active support of Armenian revolutionary Federation's assassination of Talaat. This article does not have any claim on the reasons why Armenian Fedayee (Kamavor) member decided to assassinate Talaat. This may help you; Mujahideen groups in the Soviet war in Afghanistan got support (active and/or passive) from CIA. This does not mean Mujahideen groups fought because CIA ordered them. I think you need to read the article carefully before reacting to it. --Rafael Hanyan (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that including this wild and completely unsubstantiated claim that somehow "British intelligence" was behind the assassination of Talaat Pasha is absurd and NPOV. My understanding is that "theories" are not supposed to in the wiki, or at a minimum must be documented as theories, not as facts, and must have some reasonable evidence, such as research by a neutral party. The cited source for this "fact" is an obviously biased source. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion - Shia Islam?

I think multiple sources are required for this. --Mttll (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as I know, he was a Bektashi. Possibly the author Jamil Hasanli wrongly translated into Russian. Takabeg (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly definite that a number of Young Turks were members of the Bektashi order and that some were both Freemasons and Bektashis — Talat Pasha, Riza Tevfik, and the Sheyhulislam Musa Kazim Efendi were all in this category. (Ernest Edmondson Ramsaur, The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908, Russell & Russell, 1970, p. 113.) Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Both say that The Sunni-Shiite Divide is not important. Талаат-паша заявил, что в Берлине он действовал в интересах и Азербайджана и сделал, как ему кажется что было возможно… И это потому, между прочим сказал Иоффе, что крестьянство на Кавказе угнетается беками и богачами и, кроме того, там мусульмане - шииты, а вы, турки, - сунниты. На последний довод я (говорит Талаат-паша) ответил - а вот я турок и шиит! - Паша хазратлари, вы ответили великолепно! Позвольте и мне добавить, что если бы я имел удовольствие быть там с вами, то в свою очередь сказал бы г. Иоффе: А вот я кавказский мусульманин и суннит (хотя и рожден от родителей-шиитов)". Это все уроки прежней России, чиновники которой с провокационными целями раздували племенную и религиозную рознь между отдельными национальностями;--Melikov Memmed (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Early Life section - telegram

this is, i think, a simple question. scanning this Talk page to see if it had been raised before, though, i see several comments about LATER telegrams. and that seems tied into some more contentious issues around this article/topic. but i'm just wondering--what was "wrong" with the telegram mentioned in the Early Life section? with just this: "He was caught sending a telegram saying 'Things are going well. I'll soon reach my goal.' With two of his friends from the post office, he was charged with tampering with the official telegraph and arrested in 1893." a casual reader is probably left with many questions (at least I am).

here's a few: was he not allowed to send telegrams? if not, why not? what was the "official telegraph" he allegedly tampered with--what was it supposed to have contained? to whom was it sent? by whom? why would a young clerk have access to an important "official telegraph"? if it was a tampered-with "official telegraph," then what was the intent of the "tampered" message?

he was 21, so it was ~1895 (and there's another question–if he was 21, it couldn't be 1893). at any rate, it was long before the Young Turk Revolution, and long before April 1915. even so, was it somehow tied into these other things? if it wasn't, a bit more detail on this small part of his early life would be helpful. (and if it was, somehow, tied into other things, an explanation of THAT would be quite helpful.)Colbey84 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Referenced information by IPs

I have seen no discussion nor consensus to remove referenced information from this article. Stating some arbitrary court decision does not justify anything. Removal of referenced information without consensus is vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Is this confirmed? --Phoenix Hacker 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That depends on whom you ask. --Lambiam^Talk 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Most, but not all, Western scholars would agree that Talaat Pasha was instrumental in inciting the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, discussing his role in the genocide is completely acceptable. Augustgrahl 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussing his role in a possible genocide is off course acceptable, but giving wrong information to proof genocide is not. In this article wrong information is given about his supposed order to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" given in the Andonian telegrams. This information is given as a fact even if there is strong evidence they were forgeries and these documents have somehow mysteriously disappeared while in European hands. The Andonian papers were also never used to back up the accusation for the genocide and that also is strange. Why would you not use this evidence if the papers were genuine? Talat Pasha's order on April 24, 1915 which is verified as genuine in contrast to the Andonian papers gives specific reasons for his order to arrest the Armenian leaders. Nowhere in the order does he speak about murdering civilians, he speaks about Armenian separatist movements who are a threat to the Ottoman Empire.

There is also no conclusive proof for a deliberate massacre of a million Armenian civilians ordered by the ottoman government. There were no concentration camps, gas chambers or furnaces to burn bodies like the Nazi's used and tough there were mass graves found, it is not even close to a fraction of the million Armenians that were supposedly killed. Turkish authorities claim some of those mass graves to be Turkish civilians that were killed by Armenian separatist bands and they say these murders on Turks were the reason for the decision for the deportation of the Armenians. They were seen as a danger to the Turks because some Armenian separatist bands aided the Russian army by attacking the Turkish villages from behind the lines. Where are those million and a half Armenian corpses by the way? Surely such big amounts of corpses could have been found if they existed. The routes by which they were deported are not a secret so why were these numbers never found? It is also improbable that they were moved such distances if they were going to be killed anyway.

I am not saying no Armenians died or were killed. They were forced to march long distances without provisions and many of the weak have probably died along the way. Even the Turkish soldiers didn't have provisions, it was war time and food was scarce. It is also possible that some Turkish villagers took revenge on Armenian villages after the (rumour of) Armenian separatist attacks. In war often crimes are committed out of fear/hatred but that is not the same thing as genocide. Genocide is what Hitler did to the Jews. Deliberate and systematically killing with the purpose of exterminating a whole people. The Turks had no intention to exterminate the Armenians. They were at war with several countries (England, France, Russia, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and more) at once and in the light of the recent uprisings and separation of the Greeks, Bulgarians etc they felt threatened by the Armenians (who were according to the Turks already forming militia's and aiding the Russian army) and decided to deport the Armenians. I am open for discussion about the Armenian genocide but I want to see hard proof first. The genocide of a million and a half Armenians has never been proven. It is unfair that most of the western countries accept the Armenian genocide as true when there is virtually no hard evidence for a genocide. All there is are a couple of mass graves (maybe 1000 people in total), the Andonian papers and some eye witness accounts of Christian missionaries. Don't forget that these supposed eye witness accounts by Christian missionaries of Turkish monster soldiers smashing Armenian baby heads against rocks are not very trustworthy since Europe was at war with the Ottoman Empire. They are not exactly what you would call unbiased witnesses. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the validity of the memoirs, though their disputed nature has already been well-noted, please go to the The Memoirs of Naim Bey page. If you seriously want to challenge the established genocide conclusion as a whole, go to the Armenian Genocide article page discussion. This article cannot contradict other articles, and the summary section should reflect (in short) them as closely as possible. Discussion here should be how best to reflect those, not how best to write a WP:FORK article as a POV 'take that'. The Myotis (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says the Armenian Genocide is established? By who? Only 21 countries of the 194 countries in the world recognize the Armenian genocide, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the UK all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof of genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that in 90 years there still hasn't been given conclusive evidence that a genocide was planned by the Ottoman Empire. War crimes have certainly been committed (by all sides) but in almost every war those are committed. Turkish civilians have also been killed by the Greeks, Russians, Armenians and Europeans. Why isn't that genocide then? Would you call the 600.000 deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan genocide too? Then every case where civilians died should be called genocide. Genocide against Turks, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese etc. Genocide would lose its meaning. Genocide is what the Nazi’s did. They systematically killed millions of Jews to exterminate the Jewish race and there is enough evidence in documents and physical evidence to back that accusation (orders for genocide, gas chambers, furnaces to burn bodies etc). With the Armenian genocide it is totally different. There is no physical evidence of a million and a half Armenian deaths nor verified evidence that orders were given to exterminate the Armenians. The situation the ottomans were in (besieged from all sides by everybody) is also very different. Armenian genocide is a disputed genocide. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister not the Armenian genocide article. I mean discussion about the Armenian genocide shouldn't even be here. It seems this article about a Turk has only been written to support the Armenian genocide. It was very biased and numerous users have complained about it and edited the article. The neutrality tag has been removed tough several people objected. If I knew how, I would put it back. You say also this article cannot contradict other articles but remember that besides an Armenian genocide article there is also an Armenian genocide denial article. Doesn't it contradict that article then if you leave out "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide? The reference to the dispute of the authenticity of the andonian papers is also in the article about the andonian papers itself so my giving that reference here doesn't contradict that article either. It just balances your quote that talat pasha ordered to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything". That is only fair. I don't understand that you can give the quote "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" from the andonian papers and even accept the addition that the authenticity of the article is disputed but can't accept the reference I give from the same article? I mean finally after long discussion and objections from several users you accepted that the article should also give the information that the authenticity of the andonian papers is disputed. Why then do you reject the reference I gave? Very strange. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also resent the way that you, Amethystus and Kansas Bear ganged up on me and kept reverting the changes I made without discussing with me first. I reverted them back every time you reverted them and broke the 3RR rule and Kansas Bear reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I didn't even know what 3RR meant. Only AFTER I got banned you accepted to discuss it with me and gave me a warning. By then I couldn't even discuss it with you anymore because i was blocked. You were very clever about the 3RR rule. I even suspect that you and Amethystus are the same user but I am not sure. Anyway Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself also and was not blocked. Isn't that unfair? I told the administrators that he broke the rule too but they still didn't block him. Unfair administrators. Why do people wonder that Turkish presence on wikipedia is so few then if you treat them like this? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me repeat myself, since you are obviously having a little trouble understanding this, and since English is not your native language. If you wish to discuss the Armenian Genocide you should do so on the Armenian Genocide article talkpage. If you wish to discuss the telegrams, do so on The Memoirs of Naim Bey article talkpage.

And yes, the Armenian Genocide article states very plainly that the AG is a historically established fact, just as the Memoirs article only states that the memoirs are disputed. We will reflect these articles until a different consensus is reached and the articles are changed. Neither garbled rants nor suspect sources allow us to ignore that, it is Wikipedia policy. Unless you have something to say that is limited or focused solely to this article and its subject, you have nothing more to discuss. Also, if you suspect a user is abusing multiple accounts, please request a WP:CHECK.The Myotis (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, you @#@. You know very well I don't have any trouble understanding english. How do you know my native language isn't English? What do you know about me that you came to that conclusion. English might not be my native language but I believe I speak it better than many native speakers do. Why do you play it dirty and try to portray me as a dimwitted foreigner who has trouble understanding English. Don't get nasty because I didn't agree with you. Everybody has a right to their own opinion. What part do you not understand about my claim that this is a biography of a Turkish minister and the whole Armenian genocide accusation/discussion theme shouldn't even be that prominent here. This is not the Nuremberg Trials. You can give some information about his role in the alleged Armenian genocide but you should also accept it if others give their view about it. You have no right to force your own view on others. Like I already said the Armenian genocide is far from proven and the fact that some European and American countries recognize it doesn't make it an universally accepted fact. Just as much, no, much more countries don't recognize the Armenian genocide. Many wikipedia users have tried to give their opinion here but this hardcore pro-armenian group has chased them all off eventually. That doesn't mean you are right, it just means that people are irritated and annoyed by you. I don't understand why non-turkish people feel the need to come to turkey related articles and start editing and deleting parts to discredit turks. I don't want to go to the Armenian genocide article or the Memoirs of Naim Bey article to discuss the genocide. I wouldn't even discuss it here if every turkish article didn't end up with additions about armenian genocide, human rights, minorities and other criticisms. Even positive things such as the fairly good relations between Turkey and Israel have to be smeared by adding the few exceptions where the relations weren't perfect.[17] Ibrahim4048 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, there is no need to fly off the handle. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not understand what I had said, rather than assume that you were deliberately ignoring it. I did not mean to offend you, but it is obvious that you are not a native English-speaker, and I did not want to further problems by ignoring the fact that misinterpretations could have been made.

If you don't want to go to other articles to make your point, then you have already lost your case; we can't take a different interpretation of historical events on every page. You can rant all you want, and make whatever accusations you like, but it's just going to get reverted. I do not care about your opinion, nor the opinion of any user, an opinion is just what some person decided they want to beleive. I care about the facts you use to support it, whether or not they are trustworthy, whether or not the other scholars agree with them, and how many other sources agree with them. I also care about writing concise and correlative wikipedia articles that reflect that information we can establish as passing those qualifications. But, if you feel the need, please go ahead and post another 18-line paragraph about how unfair it is that you can't make the article the way you want and how everything is wrong with wikipedia and how much you hate everything about me. However, if you decide to engage in an actual discussion over the way we can best write the article in accordance to the policies of this website, I will be waiting. The Myotis (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes it so obvious that I am not a native speaker? Is it my lack of vocabulary? The countless grammatical and syntactical errors I make? You don't care about opinions you say, but all you have been trying to do so far is force your opinion on me. I already explained why putting "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide is concise and correlative with other wikipedia articles since there is besides an Armenian Genocide article also an Armenian Genocide Denial article. Most countries (United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Sweden, Israel, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia and many more) actually don't recognize the Armenian genocide so how do you say the Armenian genocide is an established fact? I am tired of repeating myself and don't want to argue with you anymore because of the degrading tone you use. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone not agreeing with this editor's self-inflated opinions will summarily receive personal attacks and threats[18], so beware. This user, Ibrahim4048, is only interested in his/her interpretation of history and will resort to any tactic to push his/her nationalistic agenda. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was very angry at the time so even tough I was right in my accusations I expressed them in the wrong way by directing my accusations directly against him. I had already changed the text as you can see here [19] but off course Kansas Bear has nothing to gain from that text so he uses the old one. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To quote the main Armenian Genocide article (introduction summary);

"It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides,[4][5][6] as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.[7]

"The Armenian Genocide is the second most-studied case of genocide."

"To date, twenty-one countries have officially recognized the events of the period as genocide, and most genocide scholars[10] and historians[11] accept this view.[12][13]"

As I have said, we cannot contradict other articles, and the opinion presented on the main article is the majority POV. Where in that introduction, on in that entire article (and don't try an argue that it is just wrong, if you want to do that, go to their talkpage) do you see justification for adding "allegedly"? Please point it out, I just don't see it. The Myotis (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem being is that History should not be a majority opinion, no matter how many "facts" are assembled. It appears that something very bad did happen and many, perhaps millions, of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians did disappear but there are few facts to assemble except anecdotal evidence which seems to be the dissenter's case. Are there census figures? My guess it the Sultan would never have allowed any of it to happen but by then he was overthrown and powerless in the name of progress. 72.173.169.25 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fake name while in Germany

https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/mehmed-talaat-pacha/ says his alias was "Ali Salieh". Wonder if RSes back this up? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Found an image of him as he became Grand Vizier

I found an image of him from Servet-i Funun Issue #1336, 8 February 1917, cover page https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/60/PFSIF9170208121%20%281917-02-08%29.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Autograph

I found Talaat's autograph in this https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/508/PFSIF9170823A083.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Most common name for Talaat Pasha in modern sources?

@Buidhe: @Cplakidas: @Place Clichy: @TU-nor: @Antondimak: @NickCT: @KJS ml343x: @Nedim Ardoğa: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Boynamedsue:

Some Google Ngram graphs (1, 2) was presented as evidence that Talaat Pasha's name is more commonly spelled "Talat" in modern English language sources.

Assassination of Talat Pasha uses a different spelling than Talaat Pasha and the explanation was that "Talat" is more common in modern English sources. Should the Google Ngram graphs be sufficient evidence or are there other methods of measuring Talat versus Talaat. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have tried some searches in Google Books and Google Scholar, and they indicate the same as the Ngrams. "Talaat Pasha" is consistently slightly more common than "Talat Pasha", also after 2010, but the different spellings with diacritics added together outnumbers "Talaat", slightly more pronounced the latest years. So what do we do? Toss a coin? There is no disaster having different spellings in the articles, but whatever we choose, both spellings must be presented in the lede of this article. --T*U (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Agreed that both spellings should be stated in the article. I also wonder if western newspapers like New York Times, The Guardian and broadcast stations like BBC prefer "Talat" or "Talaat" now, and if this differs from Turkish media written in English such as TRT World. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times (2009) used Talat here and (2007) Talaat here and (2007) Talaat here

The Independent (2015) used Talat here

The Guardian used Talaat on multiple occasions: 2000, 2001, 2015, Balakian editorial in 2015

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Kieser's 2018 book will probably influence future use. --T*U (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it likely will re-popularize "Talaat". WhisperToMe (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

His Background

To claim he is a roma or pomak is a slander for all romani people and pomaks around the world.

This sources are not true who claim that talat was a mix of pomak and roma heritage, bullshit. Talat was not a pomak and of course not a roma form bulgaria at all, he was a Turk from Kardzali, Kardzhali was and is the centre of turks in bulgaria. And of course he was a turk from bulgaria.

please...he havent any resemblance at all to a roma or pomak, a little bit knlowledge of history...NO roma at that time was a pasha. Have a look about Pomak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomaks

have a look about roma in bulgaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people_in_Bulgaria

This is not a place for WP:OR. We just report what the WP:RS say. Those I've looked at that mention his descent say he was Pomak or possibly Romani. (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No, This are newer sources to deny his turkish background, even the turkish wikipedia shows his turkish ancestry.

no any of older sources claimed them, that he was a roma or pomak mixed heritage.

To claim he is a roma is a slander for all romani people in the world. The roma people have nothing to do with him. Enough to put the blame on inncocent romani people, this is an outrage.

I fail to notice where Romani are blamed in the article. The fault of one person doesn't generalize a group or race or ethnicity he comes from. The same way that no one blames germans for Hilter. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

this is still Antiziganism Of course it is a blame against the romani people, because Talat was not a romanni.

it is a false claim to say Talat belonged to the romani people.

is always the same with people who havent knowledge about History. No roma at the ottoman time was a pasha. its a pitty that people believe dubious sources

Believe what you want, but Talat was not a roma or a pomak. As i said before, this sources that you believe, only wants to deny his turkish ancestry.

he doesnt look like a roma or pomak. So believe what you want...

Sources clearly describe him as a man of non-Turkish origin, a child of Romani mother and Pomak father. Jingiby (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No, these are not reliable sources, but rather dubious ones to deny his Turkish origins. He wasn't a roma-pomak. At the time of the ottoman empire Pomak and romani doesnt marry each other. Talal was a turk of bulgaria, a turk from Kircaali. Any Pomak and Romani of Bulgaria knows that he was a Turk. Even the turkish wikipedia said Talaat Pasha was a Turk. They are enough Sources who still describe him as a Turk of Kircaali.

He havent any resemblance to a roma or pomak.

Well believe what you want.

Maybe you are going to provide a lot of modern academic publications~, supporting your personal claims, aren't you? Jingiby (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Pure Antiziganism, no, it isnt a modern source, this false statemant was made long before and taken by many others. you know as well, that he had nothing to do with the roma and pomak from bulgaria. You also know that he was a Turk from Karcalli. Pomaks didnt speak turkish they speak bulgarian language dialect, while romani people spoke romanes at that time and not turkish.

it is typical to believe such slanderous, dubious sources in which his Turkish origin is deny, and to try to transfer the blame to other harmless minorities in bulgaria such as that of the roma and pomaks. the romani people and pomaks in bulgaria should complain against the false slander that talat pasha was a mix of both ethnic groups. Talat pasha didnt look like a pomak or romani. He have nothing to to with pomaks and romani people. but Blaming the Pomaks and Roma is so cheap.

Have the Romani people not been suppressed enough for centuries? Antiziganism !!!

The only sole intention of these dubious sources is to deny the Turkish origin of Talat pasha. anyone who knows just a little about history and traditions knows that pomaks and romani never married each other in bulgaria, not even during the ottoman occupation of bulgaria. In contrast, Kircaali was and is the center of the Turks in Bulgaria, since the time of the Ottoman Empire.

Wikipedia is not a forum. If you may provide any sources, please provide them. If no, this discussion is meaningless. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources in Turkish language, even the turkish wikipedia shows the name of his parents and there background from dedeler village of kayseri. But you cant understan turkish i think, so i found sourses in english, where he is given as a pomak-turkish background family. No roma. But im sure you know that ;) oh yes i Know but you like to angry me.

Sources:

http://misakizafer.com/2020/03/15/the-life-of-talat-pasha/

https://prabook.com/web/talaat.pasha/1721419

No chanse, no way. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither of these is remotely close to WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I see what's going on here, of course ... how could I be surprised... Then believe those who deny talat turkish origin.

But we roma know that Talat wasn't a roma. he wasn't one of us. and that's enough for us. We have been suppressed and slandered by you Gadjos for centuries. Now you want to blame us for that too. One day the roma will rise ... ey romalen ey chavalen ....