Talk:Armenian genocide

* Resources

Untitled

• Fadix Analysis

Message of Thanks To The Editors

Hi - I read a lot about world history, especially conflict situations like Cyprus, The Holocaust, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia etc. I often find the talk pages more interesting than the articles, because you get a sense of the underlying debates. It's also common to see aggressive & partisan editing being contained by small teams of patient, fair & ethical volunteers. As a wikireader, I wish to thank Meowy, THOTH, VartanM & The Myotis for their work on this page. Well done!

Derivation of "genocide"

The article states that the term "genocide" was coined in response to the Armenian Genocide. This is untrue, the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943 in response to events occurring within the Third Reich. The term was first put in print by Lemkin in a 1944 article, and then entered into the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1948. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.27.59 (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

According to "The Great Game of Genocide", by Donald Bloxham, p210;"Nevertheless the author of the term and inspiration behind the convention, the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was clear that his thinking had a much wider relevance and had been particularly influenced by the Armenian case.".

What evidence do you have that says differently? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

False. Even a casual perusal of Lemkin's own writings on the origin and inspirations behind his coining of the word "genocide" reveals he considered the Armenian Genocide to be his most important influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us have a look at the sources for the phrase "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events":

• Source 17: And he invented a word for the crime the Nazis were committing. Genocide.
• Source 18: because it happened so many times

From my point of view, the sources do not justify the phrase. As for the citation from Donald Bloxham, it demonstrates that Lemkin was well informed about the Armenian genocide (as well as about the Holocaust - remember the book title - and many other historical examples). Thus it could be appropriate to write: "The word genocide was coined to describe, among others, also these events." Please correct my Pidgin English if necessary. --Max Shakhray (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

confused by the Table: Armenian population, deaths, survivors

I don't know if anyone took a close look at those documents but they have no claim as if to how many Armenian were killed. Not only that even though you will see that the number of Armenian citizens decreased in some cities (see adana) you will see that the numbers increased in others (see Kastamonou). Not only that you will see that the muslim population decreased in almost every city. Finally, the document from US_State_Department_Document_on Armenian Refugees does not comment on the number of deaths. It states that app.96,000 Armenians were forced to change religion but absolutely no comment is made on how many Armenians died. My point is this table doesn't support the claims made in this article, and is irrelevant to the rest of the article, and the title of the table it is presented under. DenizCc (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point here. The text in that section basically concedes that the relevance is questionable. It may be a form of OR to have it here. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Photos

Has any one checked the relevance of the photos published in the article, e.g., “The remains of Armenians massacred at Erzinjan” there is no date and there is no location for this photo (Erzincan is a whole province), no author (licence for use?) not to mention that a part from the inserted caption nothing would suggest the pile of human remains belonged to Armenians or of the way these died. The “Map of massacre locations and deportation and extermination centers” this seems like original research to me. Hittit (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Erzinjan is not a whole province - in 1915 Erzinjan was a town in Erzurum province. If the image copyright note is correct, the photograph has a clearly stated source: fig 53 in chapter 27 of "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" by Henry Morgenthau, published in 1918, with an unambiguous caption "A relic of the Armenian massacres at Erzingan. Such mementos are found all over Armenia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Culture section: Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross; wall paintings at Ani

Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross shows continuing political tension over treatment of Armenian cultural property within Turkish borders (here I think Turkish deconsecration of Armenian church to form Turkish museum). At Ani, the failure to prevent vandalism of murals, and their whitewashing and/or removal likewise erodes Armenian heritage. People happy if I have a stab at including this? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of Victims

Can you kindly provide names of Armenian victims, their date of birth, manner of death and other information? Thank you?Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Names of Victims

Can you kindly provide names of Armenian victims, their date of birth, manner of death and other information? Thank you?Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time by asking such ridiculous questions. Your most recent edit onto this article alone violated about half a dozen of Wikipedia's rules and should it be added again, especially in such a bad faith manner, action from the administrators will be requested.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction Regarding A Sentence At "Defining genocide"

Under the topic "Defining genocide", "Many Turkish intellectuals have been prosecuted for characterizing the massacres as genocide." is stated. However in the following citations, namely 164 and 165, only Orhan Pamuk is mentioned. Also, Orhan Pamuk is a novelist, hardly a historan. He "has subsequently stated his intent was to draw attention to freedom of expression issues.", also the charges against him were dropped. Thus, the sentence used is misinforming by stating that "many" Turkish intellectuals were prosecuted. Furthermore, the sentence is ireelevant to the topic (the Armenian Genocide), as the mentioned writer did not use the term genocide because he believed it to be so, but to draw attention to freedom of expression issues. Palamut (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bozkurt93, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please edit this page ! it doesnt obey your 5 rules! Give two idea neutral point of view. We think that there is no genocide so you have to edit it!

Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle. The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration. The "wiki process" and as the final decision-making mechanism for all content. The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment. Free licensing of content; in practice defined by each project as public domain, GFDL, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. Maintaining room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems. On the English Wikipedia, an Arbitration Committee has the authority to make certain binding, final decisions such as banning an editor. Other wikis have set up similar frameworks. [edit]

Bozkurt93 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not Armenian Holocaust?

Why is it referred only to a Genocide when many have referred to it as the 20century's first Holocaust?