Talk:Adana

"Adana Massacre"

For user: 211.48.24.219:two sites mentioning the Adana Massacre(i decided not to include an armenian one):[1],[2] Why are u denying such a historical event?--Hectorian 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"A Treachery to Ottoman Empire"

If you insist on pointing out "Adana Massacre" , its place is right under the famous "Armenian Genocide" page. If you plan to insert "historic facts" on how many Armenians were killed on each Turkish cities page, I am sure some other guy will come with the bright idea of editing the Armenian cities, which are only a few. --Isarioglu 20:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is exactly the right place for the Adana massacre. This is not a Turkish government site. I make no difference between people who remove information on the Armenian genocide and Holocaust deniers who remove information on the holocaust. I revert them at sight.--Wiglaf 20:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf,

On the "Armenian Genocide" , I express my knowledge and ideas of what really happened on discussion page. For the events between 1919 and 1922, I have to ask you a simple question:

What would happen to a minority in YOUR country, if that minority would cooperate with the invaders and further, join their armed forces and make YOUR civilians suffer or kill them for revenge, money or fun, after the invaders are gone?

I thing you would revert them at sight...

The civilized way would be to arrest individuals who committed crimes, not to condemn an entire nation to ethnic cleansing. There is a reason why Slobodan Milosevic is in prison at the moment.--Wiglaf 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglav,

When one person in ten does commits this crimes and you have efficent ways to restore order and organise trials, that is the way it should be done. If this is not the case, it is called civil war, the most unpleasent and bloody kind of war. Yet the article itself explains how brevly Adana Armenians fighted against the local Turks when French withdraw, and be sure not with stones. Ethnic cleansing is one thing, civil war is another.

Tashnak terror onto Ottoman Armenians, who did not share their point of view and other Ottoman authorities, the bloody Armenian revolt at 1915, which killed a quarter million of Turks and Kurds in a span of few months, a geat many Armenian youths joining the invading armies at 1919 does not look worth mentioning at Wikipedia.

The exile of Armenians, which resulted with a disaster is a shame on Ottoman but not on modern Turkey. You have to understand that at early 1915, the same Ottoman Empire has send his best army, consisting of choosen, big , strong Turkmen youngsters to death at -40 Celcius at Battle of Sarikamis. 90,000 of best Ottoman soldier has frozen, because some pasha has arranged that the only regiment with good winter wear paraded 10 times in front of Enver Pasha. And Enver never questioned why soldiers started to freeze , until it was too late.

--Isarioglu 22:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Adana massacre is not really related with the Armenian genocide, it happened in 1909, and the official Ottoman version doesn't deny it really happened. In fact, it is the only massacre of Armenians, that the "other side" do not entirly disagree with the official version. The Ottoman advanced 15 thousand as number of victims, Western sources varry from 20,000 to 30,000. The minimum range is pretty close to the Ottoman figures. Beside, there were Ottoman trials after the event condemning many that participated in the massacres. So, I really don't see what your regurgitated revionism regarding the Armenian genocide is doing in the Adana talk page. Beside, what you think is the truth, is not proper Wiki talk page discussion. Talk pages don't exist to establish what is the truth or not, but rather discuss regarding the different official positions. Fadix 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

To those who are removing the Greek name

Please don't. Although it is historical most Wikipedia articles have the historical name in the first paragraph. See Gdańsk for example. --Khoikhoi 03:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• if its true,can you explain me why the turkish name in the Kos entry was deleted and moved to history section?

• • I'll re-add that. It was removed by some anon. --Khoikhoi 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You are provoking people.I will report you

Foreign and historical placenames are explicitly encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names). Specifically:

"The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."

Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Name, Hittites, Cilicia etc.

Re. this addition: "Its history goes back to the ancient Hittites,calling the area;Uru Adaniya which means Land of Adana.The city later took the name of the son of Pheonician King Agenor's son Cilic,which turned into Antiochia in Cilicia (Αντιόχεια της Κιλικίας) or Antiochia ad Sarum (Αντιόχεια η προς Σάρο)"

I have severe doubts.

• It's not "Cilic", it's Cilix.
• Cilix and Agenor are legendary personalities.
• Cilix is related to the naming legend not of the city, but of the region of Cilicia. The city was obviously named not directly after him, but after the country.
• If we talk about the naming of "Antiochia in Cilicia", then of course we'll have to talk about some "Antiochus", who is obviously the direct name patron of the Hellenistic founding of the city.
• I'd require solid references for the claim that the name "Adaniya" was used previously by the Hittites. Not that I'd exclude it, at first sight, but the only reference I can find on the web is a single text that is spread identically across a couple dozen Turkish-language websites. Not very confidence-inspiring.
• If "Adaniya" was used before the Hellenistic era, we need a more detailed discussion about the side-by-side tradition of "Adan(iy)a" and "Antiochia" in antiquity.
• Further down in the article it is said that the city was founded in the first century BC. That must be the foundation under the name of "Antiochia", obviously. The relation between that foundation and any previous Hittite settlement must be clarified.
• There's a weird sentence further down in the article that I noticed only now: "Adana is the only city, whose name has remained the same for centuries in the world". What's meant by that? (Given the fact that "Antiochia" and "Adana" are clearly two different names.)

Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the name of the city comes from an ancient Hititian legend, about the son of King, called Adanus. Antiochus is about Tarsus, not Adana itself. By the way, Tarsus doesn't locates at the border of city not only in modern time but also in ancient times. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the dab page at Antiochia, both Tarsus and Adana were called Antiochia at one time, there were a hell of a lot of different Antiochias. As for "Adana", I can now at least confirm that it too is ancient, and there's an eponymous report or legend about one "Adanos" as a founder. It's in Greek sources; I wonder if we can trace it back to Hittite ones (I rather doubt it). So, do we have an ancient settlement that was re-founded or re-established under the name of Antiochia at one time but kept the original name of Adana side by side with it? Given this complexity, it might be a better idea after all to move the historical names further down in the article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It seems Dbachmann had the same thought. Good, then let's leave it at that. Would be nice to have a source attesting the Hittite name too. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

about armenian genocide

Hi all,

I live in Adana and if you are interested in furthering your info. of genocide in Adana, I have lost of proofs that there were Turkish genocide in Adana. Genocide of Armenians in Adana is an example of Armenian lies.. In the north of Adana where Kozan and Kadirli locate, there were lots of graves of people who were killed by Armenians. Additionally, in those places there are some photo museums which shows the total killing actitvities of Armenians by the aid of France. Besides, I want to point that there were newer 30.000 Armenians in Adana at that time.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the paragraph about the Adana massacre. I cited two sources - one Armenian and one Turkish. Please cite your source about the killings of Turks by Armenians. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

the page is about a city, it is not about a genocide. The article doesnt need a genocide. we should disscuss it in this talk page. I am preparing my sources to disscuss in this page, not to put them to article. I advise you to do the same. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that what occured in Adana was not a genocide but a massacre, this is universally accepted to be the case. Furthermore, the massacres occured on both sides and I strongly agree that the tragic event has no business in the Adana article!

Agree --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article isn't about the massacre, but it's still worth adding a small paragraph about it. I cited two sources, please don't remove it again until you have a source that says it didn't happen. --Khoikhoi 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that there is a discussion about wether the Adana massacre should be in this article.Adana should not be 'treated' differently than the articles about other cities.removing a specific historic event from an article about a specific city,is nothing more than an attempt to hide the facts!the reference must stay for the same reasons as,e.g. the 526 earthquake is mentioned in the article Antioch...it is a History(=unchangable)--Hectorian 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to mention massacres, which is obviously a serious issue, you also need to put it into context or else, it just sounds like the locals just woke up one morning and decided to go on a killing spree against the Armenians!

It was not caused by the locals,but rather by the authorities.but in any case,there should be only a mention of this in this article.further details about the victims and what lead to this event can be found in Adana holocaust(which,btw,has to be made NPOV and be expanded).--Hectorian 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right, there was also a massacre of Turks instigated by the Armenians so, although the figures may not be in the same order, it is important to point this out, if not, like in the Armenian "genocide" article, the Turks are being portrayed as evil doers, part of the systematic Armenian campaign to sully the image of Turks. The Adana Holocaust article is clear proof of this!

And BTW, it was local officials, there were no orders coming from the central government!

I am not aware of the level of your memory,nor am i interested to know it.if u have sources about a massacre of the turks by the armenians,cite them.but if u omit the reference to the armenian massacre,just cause it does not fit in your POV,it is u who makes the Turks are being portrayed as evil doers,cause u try to delete history.

and btw,when saying 'locals' i meant citizens.u do not know if the local officials had orders by the central government or not.and in any case,those who ruled did this,not the ordinary people.--Hectorian 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry, I wasnt trying to recall my memory for your blue eyes, the whole period relating to the Ottoman downfall is surrounded by controversy with claims and counter claims, forged documents, plots, assassination attempts, rebellions etc. So excuse me but just because a bunch of racist Armenian bigots or the so called "academicians" decide to point the finger on the common Turks as instigators of all massacres, just like Goldhagen did with "Hitler's willing executioners", doesnt mean that they hold a monopoly on truth. Learn to be more objective and look closer at the supportive evidence and then you will realize that its just a pile of rubbish! I dont know and dont care to know what you think, but there is a clear pattern of discrediting the Turk and portraying them as evil doers and, sadly, this disease seems to have crept into Wiki!

EXCUSE ME, mr.proff. but under the terms of Serves, Ottoman military was dissmissed. so they were taken orders from Eng, Fr. and It. How cany you be sure of knowing what happened in this city ? Please, don't blame people before being sure. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE MOI,mr clever.but the Adana massacre happened in 1909,before the treaty of Sevres.so,it u who should not blame people before being sure...--Hectorian 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is genocide, not in this case.

TuzsuzDeliBekir,i wonder for how long u will be reverting the article without having any single source to do so.the Adana massacre occured,it is not your fault,and u can't change it.so,stop deleting it.--Hectorian 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only me but also some editors too. I still translating the sources to English. and stop being histeric. look what you wrote. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused of numbers. At this time the population of the city was about 30.000 and according to Ottoman sources there were only about 3000 Armenians lived in the city so how come 30.000 Armenians could be killed? [3]

I am not hysteric,i know what i wrote,do u know what are u doing?u are reverting edits without sources.well,translate them,present them and then,if u are right,revert the previous edits.I will try to help u about the numbers confusion that u have:the massacre refears to the Adana villayet,not only to the city.--Hectorian 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you know that vilayet means city in turkish.

in the administrative divisions of Ottoman empire,vilayets included only cities?or also rural areas?i am not saying what it means in the lexicon,but how the word was used in the administrative system.--Hectorian 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reoublic of Turkey uses the same adm. division for cities. According to its defination, a city is a center which local admin. locates and rural areas which are in the border of the city that is drew by government. Little is changed in adm. divison of the city after Ottoman Empire.

I looked the sources that yopu put at the ref. section. First of all, onyl one of them is paralell to your claim which was written by Armenian, well I have some question for it, but before asking them could you please tell me how you can reach you claim (by judging people) without reading a counter-sources ? Have you ever read an Ottoman sources ? Or, this is much more important that you and those guys who wrote this sources without coming to place where their claim (30.000 of them were killed) ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 10:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that i understood what u said about the adm.system.lets be clear:a vilayet contained only a city,a city and a small rural area or a city and a vast rural area,something like that drawn in the map in this article?cause if it is the last case,i find the claim that there were not that many armenians in the city or non importance...

I have put no links at the reference section.but whoever did it,he was not supposed to include many references for the Adana massacre.it is an article about Adana,and the massacre is just mentioned in the history section.do not accuse me by saying "you and those guys who wrote this sources" or "judging people".look at the top of this page...i provided 2 links without including neither an armenian nor a turkish one.look at the date:i did it 3 days before.i am not trying to present an event that never happened.i am just trying to point at an event,that happened in Adana and is part of the city's history.it will be very interesting if u show some ottoman sources,as well as if someone wants to show some armenian sources.this will be a good balance for the discussion.but i think that neutral sources should be used in the article.the number in the article is 20-30,000,for the reason that there is not a source clear or neutral enough about the exact number of the victims.but this does not mean that the event did not happen.so,i find it ridiculous for anyone to try to delete it.and btw,i am not supposed to visit any place on earth were an event happened so as to write about it.Regards--Hectorian 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. City is the place where its borders are drew by government. by means of that it can be big or small. It depends on citizens. For inst. Konya a Turkish city is bigger than some european country. I dont have much time, at some point I agree with you, so we can talk later --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[4] you should take a look at this. Secondly, the event is a blury case, because most of the historians are aggree on that the Adana massacres, and Hamidian massacres resulting to what appears to be an attempt of population maximization.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting page...but it is a turkish one.i would like to see sources by non-turkish and non-armenian sites.both of them may be biased and not considered neutral.In any case,i am not debating the numbers.i can't!what i think suitable is to include the massacre as a historic event in the history section,and to stop reverting and 'hiding' it.the numbers are the 2nd level of discussion.if we finally accept the reference of the massacre in the article,we can then search for the most appropriate number of victims.i am pretty sure that noone knows exact numbers about that time.the point is which estimation can be considered more neutral...--Hectorian 21:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

since we all agree that massacres took place and also agree that the figures are not reliable, I suggest we omit any reference to the numbers killed! The mention of a massacre should suffice on this page, beyond that, it become propaganda!

Hectorian, stop blaming me, If I revert a page, I sign it. I think I have read some from www.answer.com. What I am afraid is whetver it is going to be a propaganda or not.since we don

't know how many of them escaped, how many of them were killed or how many of them are still alive. We still have some Armenian villages in Adana. As a general idea around 1000 are loss. At second place, we should delete the section before being aggree. Additionally, the sources showed in the reference section are totally non-sense, I am remowing them. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont whether you saw it or not, but a user opened a category for this diss. I think we should go there for disscussion. Do you agree ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that there still are armenian villages in adana area.i do not agree in deleting the section before discussing,but i will not re-add it(for i do not wanna start a new revert-war).lets deal with the sources and numbers(cause,i think,that's the problem) in the discussion page that u said.--Hectorian 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are Armenian villages in Adana, one of them is close to my villages. You are right because number is the most important problem in this case. most of the historian use Ottoman and German sources, though Germans had right to open ever door in the empire and thier sources are more relevant. Unfortunately, as I wrote above, nobody knows who escaped. Either of the sources and some France sources showed that around 30.000 Armenians escaped durin WWI. So, the number showed in the page is irrelevant. What I am aganist is non-sense propagandas. As we all know, Turks were also killed by Armenians during WWI. Those were armed by France army. At this point, we, if you wear a uniform, you are a soldier of the nation whose uniform you wear, cannot say 'Armenian' for them. Anyway, our topic is the number of whom were killed.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just note that we are talking about events that happened in 1909,not in 1914-18(WWI).i do not know if or how many turks were killed by armenians during WWI(i am talking about civilians,i am sure that soldiers died),but still,here we are talking about 1909.--Hectorian 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion - how about we mention the massacre but not include any numbers for now? --Khoikhoi 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What the 1911 Britannica says

Here is what the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) says about Adana; author is David George Hogarth. I have preserved it texto, so it uses old spellings for placenames, and calls the Ottomans 'Turks'.

(1) A vilayet in the S.E. of Asia Minor, which includes the ancient Cilicia. The mountain districts are rich in unexploited mineral wealth, and the fertile coast-plain, which produces cotton, rice, cereals, sugar and much fruit, and affords abundant pasturage, is well watered by the rivers that descend from the Taurus range. Imports and exports pass through Mersina (q.v.).

(2) The chief town of the vilayet, situated in the alluvial plain about 30 m. from the sea in N. lat. 37° 18′. E. long. 35 18, on the right bank of the Seihan (Sihun, anc. Sarus), which is navigable by small craft as far as the town. Adana is connected with Tersus and Mersina by a railway built in 1887, and has a magnificent stone bridge, which carries the road to Missis and the east, and dates in parts from the time of Justinian, but was restored first in 743 a.d. and called Jisr al-Walid after the Omayyad caliph of that name, and again in 840 by the Caliph Mutasim. There are, also, a ruined castle founded by Harun al-Rashid in 782, fine fountains, good buildings, river-side quays, cotton mills and an American mission with church and schools. Adana, which retains its ancient name, rose to importance as a station on the Roman military road to the East, and was at one time a rival of Tarsus. The town was largely rebuilt by Mansutr in 758, and during subsequent centuries it often changed hands and suffered many vicissitudes. Its position, commanding the passage of the mountains to the north of Syria, rendered it important as a military station in the contest between the Egyptians and the Turks in 1832. After the defeat of the Turkish army at Konia it was granted to Ibrahim Pasha, and though the firman announcing his appointment named him only muhassil, or collector of the crown revenue, it continued to be held by the Egyptians till the treaty of July 1840 restored it to the Porte. The chief productions of the province are cotton, corn, sesame and wool, which are largely exported. The population of the town is greatly mixed, and, having a large element of nomads in it, varies much from time to time. At its maximum it reaches nearly 50,000.

So it appears that the EB11, which is normally very keen on classical identifications, does not identify it with any ancient "Antiochia" and indeed explicitly says it kept its ancient name of Adana. We need better sources.... Some of the historical information could also be added to the article. --Macrakis 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Helal Bekir

Mücadeleye devam.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

History section

I've removed the links about armenian atrocities against the turks.no links are provided for the Adana massacre either,although some have been provided here,in the talk-page.i have to say that the links seem rather anti-armenian...I am not removing anything more at the moment,since more neutral sources may be provided.also,i removed the reference(a slight reference about a supposed high number-if i understood well),cause there was a compromise not to mention numbers about the Adana massacre either.--Hectorian 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[5]

  [6] 
  [7]

All these links are refearing to 1915,1914 and 1914-15 respectively.moreover they are talking about all Anatolia and not only Adana.In addition,they come from sites that can hardly be considered neutral,and contain newspaper contemporary articles,not academic sources.i am not saying that these articles show false events,but many times we all have read articles in newspapers that were reverted sooner the next day...--Hectorian 19:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but since when are the NYTimes or the BostonGlobe not to be considered reliable sources? Just becuase they are not academic per say doesnt mean that they are any less valid! In fact they should be taken more seriously than the comments from so called acamedicians such as Dadrian who is a well known bigot and big time racist against Turks. I agree that the articles themseleves are not directly related to what happened in 1909, but one can argue that the events of 1909 are amongst the precursors of the massacres that followed during WWI!

And by the way, TAT is an amazingly well documented site with lots of FACTUAL information unlike most of the rubbish that is spewed on Armenian sites.

The newspaper articles do not always contain reliable information (would u like me to mention all these reliable newspapers that were talking about biological weapons in iraq just 3 years ago?).Academic sources are more reliable than the previous mentioned.and if u do not consider Dadrian as reliable,better consider Orhan Pamuk...

and again,these events are supposed to have happened in all Anatolia,not only in Adana.i find no other reason of them been mentioned here,than to reduce the significance of the Adana massacre.

btw,TAT is a propagandistic site...far away than been considered neutral!--Hectorian 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TAT is not progpaganda, far from it, it uses various sources to validate its claims, its one of the most comprehensive sites rejecting the "genocide" thesis and that probably explains why Turk haters like yourself cant stand it. As for Pamuk, he is an amazing writer and I find it rather curious that he mentioned what happened to the Armenians as a massacre and NOT a genocide!

As for academic sources, as long as it does not argue against the genocide thesis its ok I guess? That ma boy is whats called censorship, something you and your armenian buddies seem to be very acquainted and at ease with! Sorry, but your argument about academicians is just not credible if you apply it in a biased manner!

Speaking with nationalists is a lose of time, Hectorian. As for sources concerning the Adana Massacre, we can cite Histoire de l'empire ottoman (1989), by a pool of historians directed by Robert Mantran, chapter 14, written by Paul Dumont and François Georgeon. This book can hardly be called anti-Turk, on the contrary the appreciation and respect for the Ottoman institutions and history pervades all the book. Aldux 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist? wow, thats news to me, didnt even realize that I was not only Turksih but a fervent nationalist for defending the cause!!! Arent you assuming a bit too much and isnt your profound obsession with anything hellenic an indication that you probably arent very objective with regards to this subject?