| Revision as of 22:01, 20 March 2015 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,139 editsm Signing comment by 100.11.128.55 - "→Title: "← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:00, 30 August 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots9,297 edits Update archiving templates after a page move (Report bot issues) | ||
| (114 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header |search=yes }} | {{Talk header |search=yes }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject Military history|class=B | |||
| |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |Ottoman=yes |WWI=yes }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Armenia|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Former countries|class=C|importance=|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Turkey|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 4 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old(120d) | |algo = old(120d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Van |
|archive = Talk:Defense of Van (1915)/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=months }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WPMILHIST |class=B | |||
| |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |Ottoman=yes |WWI=yes }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Armenia|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Ottoman Empire|class=C|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Turkey|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| == Blatant inaccuracy in timing of deportation and siege == | |||
| As I was reading this article, I couldn't help but notice the last sentence of the first paragraph "However, the decisions of deportation and extermination were made before the Van resistance." The sentence is linked to a reference by a book by Taner Akcam. Looking at the dates of this siege, it is stated on this page as 19 April – 17 May 1915. Finally, looking at the article on the ], we can note that the law was put in effect and passed on May 27, 1915. Can somebody explain how the deportation decisions were made before the Van "resistance?" ] (]) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Casualties == | |||
| This is strange, so what is the basis for the claim that the non-Armenian casualties of Van do not need any mention in an article about the Van Rebellion? Because it does not matter, because it is not important, becasue it is not related? At least half of all Muslims there were decimated. How can casualties be irrelevant in the casualties section? Silliness of some folks have no boundries. It is comical really.--] (]) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ugh, van rebellion, jews and muslims who died? seems liek another attempt at the denial of armenian genocide and whitewashing the suffering, you can write all about it with NPOV sources in an appropriate article, this is about self defence of armenian civilicans in 1915, not the dissapearence of jews from backwater Ottoman provinces.] (]) 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I added some facts and figures that I went digging to find. Unfortunately I don't have access to the Turkish sources here so most of them related to atrocities against Armenians, though I did find a few about retaliation. Some interesting things I did find was an article in the New York Times dating the rebellion which reported that Armenians were trying to raise volunteers which does suggest evidence that the Armenians were preparing in advance. But I also found a lot of sources regarding Kurdish attacks by the Hamidan, as well as sources that clearly show Cevdet Bey was implicted in this. I don't think its a strech to refer to this as a rebellion, and I think its a special case with the rest of the Armenian genocide, but that is just my opinion. | |||
| One thing that should really be addressed in this article is the issue of war propeganda. Going through the articles on the issue, it is so blatantly clear that this information is exaggerated, although in my opinion still based on fact. Examples are "Muslims to build mosques with skulls of Armenians," - c'mon... really? And many of the articles I were looking at used sources from Christian missionaries, or were reproduced in missionary articles, at a time when there was growing pressure for America to enter the war. Just wondering if any one has some information about this perspective that wouldn't violate no original research] (]) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| Please do not remove the citation needed tags from the article. Armenian sources are not reliable to say something which is not a quote. Then, we should use Turkish sources too, shouldn't we? And what about unreferenced sentences? I wonder what would happen if the unrefenced sentences were in an article about a massacre of Turks. Please be objective. --] (]) 08:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :And anyway, I see that Justin McCarthy is claimed to be not a reliable source because it is linked with Turks. But what about the Armenian authors, aren't they linked directly with the Armenians and write from an Armenian point of view. --] (]) 08:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * Let me show some examples: ''According to one source, all of the 52 Armenian villages near Doğubeyazıt and Eleşkirt were raided, pillaged and destroyed by the Kurdish Hamidiye.'' Which source? I added the citation needed tag here, and somebody else tendentiously removed it, claiming that it is tendentious. And an Armenian source: "Razmik Panossian, Armenian Genocide Insert, Vol. 73, No. 16, April 21, 2007" Now, who is Razmik Panossian? Let say it: ''Dr. Razmik Panossian’s critically acclaimed book, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, was published in 2006 by Columbia University Press and Hurst & Co. It is based on his PhD dissertation on Armenian identity and nationalism,'' Wow, very neutral source. This professor is as neutral as a Turkish historian. Don't you easily see that he is an Armenian nationalist? --] (]) 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Columbia University Press is a reliable publishing house, they wouldn't publish garbage. Thus Panossian meets the requirements for ]. Contrary to what you seem to think, an author's ethnicity has nothing to do with whether they can be considered reliable. If you read ], it doesn't say anywhere that Armenians authors are unreliable, does it? And placing 20+ cn tags is highly btw. ] (]) 17:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::All right, let's say they are reliable. But do you really think that tagging unreferenced sentences/paragraphs is tendentious? Please be objective. --] (]) 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::And anyway, removing tags from unreferenced sentences, just because 20+ of them have just been added, and you think that it is tendentious without even analysing the edit - if you have analysed, you could easily see the unrefenced sentences. Then, I have to remind ]. --] (]) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why don't you just add a tag on top of the article simply saying that this article needs more references instead of going on a tagging binge? Namely, the one bellow.--] (]) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{sources}} | |||
| :::::Well, if you want the tag on the top of the article, you can add it. But personally, I find the citation needed templete more helpful - at least, it shows where the citation is needed, and anyway, there are 90 sources. --] (]) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Van Resistance? == | |||
| I am sorry but it seems as though there is a problem with the title of the article. It reads Van '''Resistance''' however the correct definition of resistance is; resisting against an invading force. However the province of Van had been under Ottoman administration for hundreds of years and the invading army was indeed the Russian Imperial Forces. How does this then make it a resistance against the Ottoman Empire when Van was already under Ottoman rule. Surely this would be a rebellion or a battle. This is just not logical. Feel free to (as I am sure people will) correct me if I am wrong and we will have a nice long discussion about it.] (]) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :First and last warning. Another undiscussed and non-consented move of this article will result in the notification of a Admin. Seems you need to be acquainted with AA and AA2, as '''if''' I am to believe you are a "new" editor. --] (]) 20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think you should refrain from bullying and threatening other editors in your pursuit of historic revisionism. We all know what a revolt or a rebellion is.] (]) 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bullying? Threatening?? '''If you have a problem with me then I urge you to notify an Admin.''' What I know is, you are '''far''' from being able to approach any issue concerning Armenians, Turks or Azerbaijanis with any amount of NPOV, which has been proven by your numerous blocks via AA & AA2. ''Regards''. --] (]) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is indeed bullying "first and last warning" if you hadn't noticed I opened this up to discussion more than a month ago but you failed to respond and so I changed the title. Now that I changed it funnily eneough you responded pretty quickly. I did all attempts to discuss this but you did not, I shall be contacting an administrator. And implying that I am a sock puppet is just outrageous if you have any such claims take it up to the comitee. We all know this is a rebellion and not a resistence, your evasion of replying to me clearly shows this. Next time do reply to a month old talk rather than pouncing when I edit because people fail to talk about it even after a month.] (]) 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LOL. Your "discussion" in April did not mention any source(s) to support '''your opinion''' and did not address the reference that sources the first sentence. So why should I have wasted any time refuting your opinion? Simply posting '''your opinion''' on a talk page does not give you license to move an article. Oh, FYI, I will edit however I damn well please. ''Regards''. --] (]) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Clearly this was a '''rebellion''', by any definition of the word, which we can go in depth here. This is how it is recorded in almost all historic documents and the "resistance" twist seems to have been develpoed later for political reasons. Name of the article has been a problem from the beginning and has been brought up numerous times but shot down by biased editors who seem to have other unrelated agendas. I strongly urge changing the name of the article to its proper and correct version. I strongly urge a tag to the effect asap. The discussion can proceed till there is a concensus. Truth can not and should not be bullied. ] (]) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''Truth can not and should not be bullied.''" | |||
| ::Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Misplaced Pages article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Misplaced Pages:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; '''you might think that Misplaced Pages is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case'''. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. '''See Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox'''. --] (]) 05:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The implication of the name change is obvious. If this was indeed a rebellion then the Ottoman government was fully justified in putting down an armed insurgency which had chosen to challenge its rule. But this is, of course, the narrative the Ottoman government and later Turkey have been repeating for the past ninety years and the one in which people in Turkey have grown up and are most familiar with, similar to the "stab in the back" myth which the Nazis blamed the Jews for losing World War I. What happened in Van in 1915 was an act of self-defense against a government which was bent on exterminating the city's Armenian population. The same pattern that was observed elsewhere was repeated here: an isolated attack against an oppressive Ottoman official or overbearing Turkish soldiers was taken and magnified in scope. Its details were exaggerated to (or by) central authorities and disseminated (although unconvincingly) to the rest of the world, and thus used as an excuse to attack indiscriminately the entire Armenian population. | |||
| :Fortunately, we have a number of sources, among which include the account by the American missionary Clarence Ussher and the Venezuelan soldier-of-fortune Raphael de Nogales, who corroborate the Armenian (and Russian military) account that they were simply defending themselves. We cannot simply alter history all because the government in Ankara tells us to do so. --] (]) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I guess we will have to leave logic behind and go through the long, grueling process of stating sources, I shall do my very bit to ensure this name is changed to the correct term. Justin Mcarthy a well known historian in the branch of histories of the Ottman Empire and the Balkans and is currently the professor of history in University of Louisville clearly says that the act was a '''Rebellion'' and his book can be . If you don't see this as enough proof I urge you to look at by Guenter Lewy, a western political scientist who is a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts. I shall give you a quote as I have the book at hand The title of the section on page 95 reads: | |||
| '''The Revolt of Van'' (notice the word revolt) | |||
| "One of the most important factors in the decision to deport the Armenian community was the uprising at Van. This important city, close to the Russian border and in the heartland of historic Armenia, for a long time had been the center of Armenian nationalist agitation, had developed a strong revolutionary tradition, and was considered a stronghold of Dashnaks. As the Russianswere advancing in to eastern Anatolia in the spring of 1915 Armenians began a revolt aimed at aiding Russian offensive." | |||
| If that is not enough, let us look at other sources by Sean McMeekin here we can see that he said "Russian arms or no Russian arms the Armenian Partisans of Zeytun rose anyway in April just as the '''Van Rebellion''' was getting serious" | |||
| You see it is not only Ankara that tells us the correct definitions of things, it is also well acknowleged historians, profesors.You said that the American missionary as a source, I must however notify you that she/he is a primary source therefore must be featured in other secondary sources to state as a fact, primary sources are not deemed relible due to the possible biast they may have (the missionary in a muslim empire doesn't seem reliable to me) however historians (secondary) sources like mine are reliable. My claim is supported by sources, I see no reason as to not change the title. Thank you, Regards ] (]) 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, yes we are all familiar with Mssrs. McCarthy and Lewy. The Misplaced Pages ] shows how unqualified he is to be discussing this topic and demonstrates how a long list of scholars have criticized him for his lack of impartiality and deliberate neglect of sources which might contradict or weaken the strength of his central thesis. Mr. Lewy holds a somewhat higher reputation than McCarthy but his position on the Armenian Genocide is no less controversial and both these individuals have been dubbed by the academic world as genocide denialists. And sorry, McMeekin who? | |||
| :Well what sources do you think the historians have relied upon thus far? Ussher may be a primary source but his work is extremely important and tried-and-failed excuse of him being a Christian missionary (and thus being biased) has not prevented most scholars from accepting his book as an honest eyewitness account of the resistance. In addition to him and other sources, I doubt that McCarthy, Lewy or McMeekin have consulted (or are even able to read) the memoirs of those who fought in the resistance itself, which are invariably written in Armenian. By far the best modern account of the event belongs to Anahide Ter Minassian, who makes use of a wide range of sources in her chapter "Van 1915" in ''Armenian Van/Vaspurakan'', edited by Professor ], and published in Costa Mesa, CA in 2000. So who is one to believe: the Ottoman government, which had an obvious interest in portraying the Van Armenians as revolutionaries and bandits and had a history of distorting events to justify its disproportionate and punishing actions, or the rest of the world, which has answered and corrected the allegations put forth by its propaganda?--] (]) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::MB, here is who Mcmeekin is: | |||
| ::SeanMcMeekin, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University., his book's main focus is '''The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power'''. Doesn't sound like a book focused on events in Van. | |||
| ::And Lewy isn't a historian, but a political scientist, his book fails any serious amount of historical research(I should know, I own it)! | |||
| ::Compared to these books, with a focus on Van and/or Armenians during World War I, that state "resistance": | |||
| ::Massacres, resistance, protectors: Muslim-Christian relations in Eastern ... By David Gaunt(Professor of History, Södertörn University College, Stockholm, Sweden), Jan Beṯ-Şawoce, p139 | |||
| ::The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response By Peter Balakian, p209 | |||
| ::Resistance and revenge: the Armenian assassination of the Turkish leaders By Jacques Derogy, 12 | |||
| ::At the crossroads of Der Zor: death, survival, and humanitarian resistance ... By Hilmar Kaiser, Nancy Eskijian, Luther Eskijian, p8 --] (]) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I am very happy indeed that we are discussing this subject, for without discussion we can never hope to reach the true, truth about the incidents of 1915. Now, I still hold to my belief that the missanary is bias, however this may just be my "narrow mind" for it is outrageous to even dwell on the tought that a Christian '''missonary''' who has sympathies, which lie with fellow Christians, should not be able to give an objective view. That aside I have Guenter Lewy's book at hand, and I am now seraching the bibliography to site those "doubted" memoirs. From what I can see from the bibliography there are many reports, not just Ottoman ones but also foring reports dating August 7th 1915 August 12 1915 and so forth; there are also diaries of the Danish '''missonary''' and many other memiors as well as reports preticularyly reports from the United States for example Davis report of February 9, 1918 and many more. As we can see Mr Lewy's research is comprehensive and reliable enough to bear weight. To add to this we can consider the memiors of those that fought in the rebellion bias to even include would we include the memiors of me for example if I were an Ottoman soldier? You see my friend, by saying b far the best is your own point of view please see]] to add to this the some of the sources you have mentioned have been written by professors of Armenian decent for example: Anahide Ter Minassian, Richard G. Hovannisian, Nancy Eskijian, Luther Eskijian, Peter Balakian. You see most sources you have given do have a vested interest to promote the Armenian cause (if you don't mind me saying so). I do not give you Turkish or Azeri professors due to the possible biases they may have and neither should you with Armenian ones. We should choose, like I have done neural western professors. Now let us look at Taner Akcam. At first glance one would assume him to be credible due to his Turkish ethnicity and speaking against the Turks. However when we look deeper we will see that he maintains financial connections with the Sargzyan family (I shall provide a link later on please forgive me, I don't have any time today). To add to this he is an associate professor meanining he is not a full professor and is trumped by the three professors I gave. Releating to the fact that Guenter Lewy is not a historian. Anybody who researches and writes about history '''is''' a historian so that point is void. Thank you for reading, to conclude this the professors I have presented have done research on the matter and produced material which is reliable. They are neutral as they are not a member of the conflicting parties therefore my point is further reenforced where as the sources you have given are mostly from professors of Armenian decent. Thank you, regards, ] (]) 19:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You truly do not know anything about Lewy's ] regarding his book. His intentional cherry picking of Ussher is unscholarly and reeks of willful ignorance. Anyone that ignores the majority of Ussher's book and instead has to sensationalise how an Armenian child ran through the hospital killing Ottoman POWs, is truly an incompetent "historian". A pity that Lewy also omits that Jevdet Bey reports the Van Armenians as "in rebellion", a '''true indication''' where that '''ideology originates'''. Lewy also blatantly ignores Rafael de Nogales observations(like the statement that the Armenian stance was purely defensive) or how Nogales witnessed Turkish army units photographing their own weapons, claiming they had been found in Armenian houses and churches, but instead cherry picks sentences from that source as well. | |||
| ::How long has Taner Akcam been working for Sargzyan family?? | |||
| ::If we are to remove/ignore comments from German, Austrian, Swiss missionaries then there is no reason to continue this discussion. What is next? That there were no massacres? There wasn't a plan of deportation to the desert of ](assuming the Armenians made it that far)? That '''only''' Armenians located near the Caucasus Front were in this plan of deporation? That no Armenians were removed from Constantinople and executed? | |||
| ::As I have briefly outlined, Lewy's "research" has a singular focus and can easily be shown to be incomplete and inept. | |||
| ::As for Mcmeekin(whose book is not focused on massacres/Armenian Genocide), the singular quote reeks of more ] via books.google.com. | |||
| ::"''To add to this we can consider the memiors of those that fought in the rebellion bias to even include would we include the memiors of me for example if I were an Ottoman soldier.''", according to '''you''' Nogales can not be used and '''he was an Ottoman officer'''! I guess you, like Lewy, are busy censoring what you do not want to read/hear. | |||
| ::Bloxham, "The Great Game of Genocide", p70-71, calls it the "Van uprising", then simply Armenian rising and Van rising. | |||
| ::I have given 5 references '''specifically''' related to massacres/Armenian genocide, along with page numbers and all you can dig up is Lewy? | |||
| ::So far I do not see any viable reason to change the title of this article to "Van Rebellion" for this article. ''Regards''. --] (]) 05:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You know, I honestly cannot wrap my head around this obsession with the ethnic or national identity of scholars which editors continue to bring up. The ethnic background of a scholar has no bearing to his ability to live up to the standards set by the scholarly community. What makes Richard Hovannisian or Anahide Ter Minassian such outstanding historians is the expertise they bring to their fields. They have been educated in fine educational establishments, can read in multiple languages (including Armenian and Turkish) and have been brought up to study these topics with respect to what actually took place. Unlike Lewy or McCarthy, they don't try to advance any secret agenda and do not quote the sources selectively. Lewy cannot read in Armenian and I doubt that he has even consulted the memoirs of the Armenians who took part in the city's defense. And the suggestion that Akcam is somehow being paid by the Sargsyan family in Yerevan to write his books and propound his position sounds so absurd that it doesn't even merit reply. That comment alone almost discredits your arguments entirely.--] (]) 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This is a very old argument. Arguments about this inaccurate name of the article were made previously here, over a year ago. There was strong opposition by certain parties who seem to have a vested "interest" in portraying the rebellion at Van in a certain manner. Why not cut to the chase on this? Here is the defintion of "rebellion" in Misplaced Pages: | |||
| ''Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a '''refusal of obedience or order'''. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at '''destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government''' or a head of state. On the one hand the forms of behaviour can include non-violent methods such as the (overlapping but not quite identical) phenomena of civil disobedience, civil resistance and nonviolent resistance. On the other hand it may encompass '''violent campaigns'''.'' | |||
| Here is what Webster says: | |||
| ''opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government'' | |||
| It fits like a glove obviously and not surprising at all. Not even remotely, the rebellion at Van, where a group resists the '''established order''' or authority or government in an armed struggle, can be categorized as anything but a rebellion. It is a mystery why such an inappropriate title has survived this long. Motivations and refusal to consider basic established facts and defintions need to be questioned at some point. I strongly urge to get this title back to reality. ] (]) 03:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Kansas please keep your own point of view out of the discussion. It is irrelevent which sources he used and which he ommited. For you can not use all the sources available. What matters is that a professor has used primary sources which he belived were reliable to come to a conclusion. Your point of view on the sources he used is void for he is an expert at his field of study. In addition to the ones ethnicity does matter when it comes down to historians, this is especially the case when there are two ethnic groups at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Their ability to come to a neutral and objective conclusion is placed under question. I can give many a Turkish and Azeri historians who deny the massacres however they would have vested interests in doing so, just like Armenian historians would do too. Therefore I am not giving any such names and neither should you. I also agree with Murat the meaning of the term rebellion fits quite perfectly with the events in Van and thus should be used. I also would like to admit that I have a vested interest. A vested interest in the portrayal of history in the most accurate, truthfull and objective way. This should be so for all us editors. Thank you, regards, ] (]) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Compared to '''your''' POV in April that brought '''no''' sources but was good enough, in your opinion, to move an article without consensus? Compared to '''your''' POV concerning any Armenian name that happens to appear as an author? Compared to '''your''' POV that '''NO''' primary sources(Ussher,Nogales,Christian missionaries) should be used since they both say things you do not want to hear. Compared to ''Murat'' who has not contributed to the discussion except for whining about '']''. No, I would say that '''your''' POV has been used to set up a situation, whereby ]. Oh, and since you have conveniently '''not''' mentioned them; Kaiser is not Armenian, Gaunt is not Armenian, Bloxham is not Armenian, Jacques Derogy is not Armenian. --] (]) 01:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: My only aim for this page is to promote it in a neutral stance. This is why I am excluding Armenian and Turkish and Azeri professors and scholars for none can provide an objective, nuetral view of history through the tainted glasses of a national cause. I am being nuetral in my langauge, for my POV incolves Turkish and Azeri scholars too. Misplaced Pages actualy says that primary sources are not as reliable as secondary sources and should be used if there are a few secondary sources to support the notion the primary source is supporting. I have only expressed this and this only. I am not wikipedia gaming, I have acknowleged that there is two sides to this story however the side which you provided was mainly supported by Armenian scholars to which I have expressed my concern to. Whereas the side I provided featured no Turkish or Azeri schoalrs but neutral ones. I say we discuss the non-Armenian sources that you have mentioned but how am I supposed to do that if I am not provided the links for their books. I have provided links to the books I have presented.I have however looked at some of the books I could find one by David Gaunt which says alleged "Van revolt" however in the page you have given, it does not talk indepth about what actualy happened due to the shallowness of this page I see no indication as to not calling is rebellion. The book by Jacques derogy can not be accsed through goodle books because it have limited preview can you please provide a link to it .Thank you, I wish you the best Regards, ] (]) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Wrong Tugrul: it is ''very'' relevant what sources he used and what he omitted because that implies that he was selective with those sources that might possiblly contradict his conclusions. And as his biographical entry on Misplaced Pages makes clear, Lewy is hardly a non-controversial author. He seems to believe in Holocaust exclusivity, i.e., a fringe opinion that the one true genocide in the recent past was that of the Jews', and not of other peoples', going to extreme lengths to discredit the suffering that the Armenians, the Roma, the American Indians, and others were subjected to. This seems to explain the position that he takes up on the Armenian Genocide. While the worst level of criticism that can be leveled against historians like Hovannisian or Ter Minassian is their desire to bring the history of modern Armenia into greater light, the same cannot be said of scholars working in Turkey or Azerbaijan, whose writings are essentially controlled by the one narrative their governments peddle. That's the basic difference; one set of scholars are working for and abiding by the standards accepted in Western academia while the other is engaged in what all respected commentators can best be described as disingenuous historical revisionism. In any case, this conversation is going in circles and I'm going to ignore further comments which are so egregiously erroneous and deceptively misleading.--] (]) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| It should be called as "Van Revolt". Some sources:] 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : You can call it as "Van Rebellion", "Van Resistance", "Van Revolt" etc...... ] (]) 16:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed, and so far I belive it is 4 in favour of name change and 2 against it. However I shall try to persuade the remaining. Marshall, you are correct the sources he uses is very much important. However your interpretation on weather they are reliable or not isn't for it is your own point of view against a professors. And one would assume a reliable sources such as a professor uses sources from a variaty of places. You must also understand that wikipedia does not quote wikipedia, so please refrain from doing so. In addition to this, which scholar who writes about the so called genocide, isn't controversial. For example; one of Akcam's sources of financing is the prominent . This Armenian foundation, according to the report, is partly responsible for the payment of Akcam's upkeep at his current headquarters, the University of Minnesota. When there are two camps, to sides to a scholarly debate each side tries to refute each other which explains the controversial records of all sides, including Lewy. I can also say that Guenter Lewy is not a fringe opinion for in order to be so he must be the '''only''' one supporting his notion. However as we can see from the few examples I have provided, he most definately is not fringe. Again you see you are bringing out own point of view in to the discussion by saying that the Armenian professors provided only wish to promote the truth and thats the worst possible allegation made against them which is clearly your own POV. You also say that "the same cannot be said of scholars working in Turkey or Azerbaijan, whose writings are essentially controlled by the one narrative their governments peddle." this again is POV. Do you have any proof of this conspiracy that they say what the government wants them to say? By assuming they do say what the government says you are unveiling the fact that you bear predisposed opinions about Turks and Azeris. However I on the other hand belive to have a fair balance we must exclude the professors of the conflicting parties and focus on neutral professors. If you do ignore any further comments I will assume the discussion has ended and it has ended in a 2 against and 4, for the change which would mean we can change the title. Thank you, I wish you best, Regards ] (]) 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sure you are in a ]. What a joke. Pity you had to canvass two editors that have been blocked and banned by AA and AA2. Birds of a feather........... Actually, this reeks of ]. | |||
| :FYI, it is a pity you can not see beyond your own agenda, Akcam wrote his doctorate thesis in 1996(concerning the Armenian Genocide). LONG before any association with any Armenian Foundation. | |||
| :And stop parading Lewy around like he is some sort of messiah. It proves nothing, while you blantantly ignore the sources I have provided. | |||
| :All you have accomplished is ignoring those you disagree with, while ]. Sad when you have to ignore a multitude of sources just to further Turkish propaganda. | |||
| :Other cases of resistance: | |||
| :''A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire'', By Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, Norman M. Naimark, p5. | |||
| :''Empire, colony, genocide'', By A. Dirk Moses, p337. | |||
| :An uprising as a last ditch desperate attempt to avert imminent destruction: | |||
| :''America and the Armenian genocide of 1915'', By J. M. Winter, p67. | |||
| :I do not see any ''Armenians'' mentioned as authors. --] (]) 20:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry about my long break, I had other important matters to attend to. I assure you that I am not a bigg hurry to leave any discussions for I do not shy away from them, please check my record. I can also say that I have canvassed noone but people have turned up on their free will, if you have any such proof of me canvassing please say so rather than making flase accusations. Now that a side I can go back to the sources you have presented me but before I do so, please scroll up, I have written about the sources you have presented to me before- well the ones that I could acess for you provided no link to them. Sources presented: | |||
| *''A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire'' I looked for this on google books but it came up as No Priview thefore I could not check the given page. | |||
| *''Empire, colony, genocide'' the author does indeed use the word resistance, that is good. However the primary source which he uses the support his idea if from Anahide Ter Minassian who is an Armenian. Should this source not cast a shadow on the conclusion that the professor came to. I'll let you to decide that for who am I to judge a professor. However the same professor also uses the term '''rising''' notice that he has shied from the term '''up'''rising but the word '''rising''' means the same as '''uprising'''. | |||
| *''America and the Armenian genocide of 1915'' in this source the author even uses the term '''uprising''' to describe the events. He/She describes the motives for this '''uprising''' but still uses the term '''uprising''' and not resistance. It is not up to us to coin names to events, it is up to professors which he, as a professor has done. | |||
| Lastly, I do not parade Lewy around as a Mesiah, we mearly discussed his reliability in debth, this does not mean he is my "Mesiah". As you can see the sources you have provided '''actualy say it was an uprising''' I realy do not see how it can be argued the contrary. I thank you for your time, Regards, ] (]) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| As to the title of this article, "Van Revolt" is not common use today. Maybe it was contemporary name of this incident. It's just like the case of the term "]", that was called as "Genc Incident" at that time (] aslo used the term "Genc Incident"). I think you can chose from "Van Rebellion" and "Van Resistance". ] (]) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : What do you think of '''''' ? ] (]) 20:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I also think the name of the article should be changed to something less POV. Other historians not yet mentioned like Erickson and Bloxham agree that the Van rebellion was pre planned and well organized. This article does seem to favour the Armenian version far too much and does not aknowledge the activities of the Russian backed ARF in Van ] (]) 11:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Kansas Bear, let me also remind you of ] this was the revolt against the Roman rule. Romans killed about 580,000 including civilians however as we can see it is called '''Revolt''' rather than resistance. There are many other examples of this. This article for me seems to be a POV push, where many professors, reliable western ones both you and I have given are taken aside. I can not see how it can be argued any thing else. I declare that the title should be changed promptly to reflect the sources and examples given as well as the consensus reached by the wider academia. Regards, ] (]) 09:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * -13 | |||
| * - 31 (but Raymond Kévorkian used this term for denial of the "Revolt") | |||
| * - 21 (but Raymond Kévorkian used this term for denial of the "Revolt") | |||
| * -6 | |||
| * - 5 | |||
| * -9 | |||
| * - 38 | |||
| * -2 | |||
| * -22 | |||
| * - 82 | |||
| * -6 | |||
| * -5 | |||
| ] (]) 10:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you Takabeg for supplying us with information. Now I will look superficialy at the sources provided. We can see that 8 books feature the title "Revolt/Revolution at Van" where as there is only 4 releating to the "resistence or defense" we can also see that there is one exceptional case of "siege of Van". In addition to this there are the books I provided from Western, professors who is not a party in any of the two conflicting sides. I have also given examples e.g. Bar Kokhba Revolt and Tagabeg has given the example of Seihkh Said Revolt. Bearing these all in ones mind we can clearly see the case for changing the title to Revolt/Rebellion is much stronger that keeping it as Resistance. Nevermind the dictionary definition of Rebellion which strengthens my proposal furthermore. I hope to wait for a reply, many thanks, ] (]) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Rica ederim. Ancak the ] + ] + ] (38+22+2='''62''') is the naming based on the POV of the "government of the ]", on the other hand, the ] + ] + ] (6+5+9='''20''') is based on the POV of "Armenians of Van". If there were not more neutral alternatives, we could chose major one in quantity. Now, as we know, there is more neutral alternative name '''Siege of Van''' ('''82''') (even ]s were never used in this battle :)), we'd better chose it. , ] (]) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The article saids | |||
| ''After the order for mobilization, ] became the subordinate of the 3rd Army under the command of Miralay Halil Bey (Kut)'' | |||
| But, as long as I know, Halil Bey (became Pasha in 1916) have never become the commander of the 3rd Army. | |||
| ] (]) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : According to ], ''Djevdet abandoned the city on the night between 16 May and 17 May and retreated toward Bahkale and joined the ]...'' | |||
| {{done}} | |||
| ] (]) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 36th Infantry Division == | |||
| According to Erickson, ''The 36th Infantry Division finally arrived from Mesopotamia and took up positions along the southern flank of the Third Army near Lake Van.''<ref>Erickson, Edward J. , ''Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War'', ], 2001, ISBN 9780313315169, p. 105.</ref> He shows, in the footnote, William Edward David Allen Allen and Paul Muratoff's ''Caucasıan Battlefield''.<ref>William Edward David Allen Allen and Paul Muratoff, ''Caucasıan Battlefield: A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border, 1828-1921'', Cambridge University Press, 1953, </ref> | |||
| According to ], ''... 1915 ] nihayetinde, ]ya bağlı ]nun ] civarında bulunan ]nın ] emrine vermiştir...] yerine daha iyi bir ] gönderilmesi ] ] rica etmiş ise de kabul olunmamış ve bir kaç gün sonra bu ]nın ]'ten ]le ] ]una sevkine başlanmıştır. ], ] üzerinden ] istikametinde yürüyecekti, iki taburiyle ]'da ]'dan hareket etmiş olan ]nın ancak ] sonlarına doğru ]'te toplanması mümkündü...''<ref>], ''Birinci Dünya Harbi'', 2. cilt, Nehir Yayınları, ISBN 975-551-067-2, p. 440. {{Tr icon}}</ref>. | |||
| ''Şu suretle ]den başka, ] ile ] da bir müddet sonra Ordunun sağ cenaına, ] tarafından bununacaktı.''<ref>Sâbis, p. 441. {{Tr icon}}</ref> | |||
| ''...] geri alınarak ]'a celbolundu. Bu esnada ]nın ilk kademesi 27/6/1915 de Butkus'e muvasalet etmiş olduğundan tedricen bu fırka Reşadiye tarafına sürüldü; ve 44 üncü alay ]'ye iade olundu.''<ref>Sâbis, p. 451. {{Tr icon}}</ref> | |||
| In short, Ali İhsan Sâbis wrote that the first group of the 36th Infantry Division arrived at Bitlis on June 27, 1915. | |||
| Could the 36th Infantry Division arrive at the battlefield at Van by May 17, 1915 ? ] (]) 21:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Sources=== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==Requested move== | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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'''. ] (]) 06:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|1=Siege of Van (1915)}} – per ] & ] | |||
| First of all, it's clear that the ] (+ Resistance of Van + Resistance at Van) is not common name of this battle ( 6 + 5 + 9 = '''20'''). Furthermore this name is based on the POV of "Armenians of Van". | |||
| Altough ] (+ Rebellion of Van + Rebellion at Van) is more "popular" than Van Resistance ( 38 + 2 + 22 = '''62'''), this name is based on the POV of the "government of the ]". | |||
| Now, as we know, '''Siege of Van''' ( '''82''') (even ]s were never used in this battle :)) is the most common name in quantity. If my memory serves me correctly, ] also used this name. Moreover, this title is more neutral than others. And to distinguish from ] (existing article ], 1574), we'd better add '''(1915)''' to this title. Thank you. ] (]) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I understand perfectly where you are coming from but I don't see Van Rebellion as just the POV of the Ottoman Government. This is because the term is used in a wide cirle of the current academia thus meaning it is a point of view with wide consensus. Saygilar, ] (]) 09:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Let me get this straight: Though it is a rebellion by definition of the word as all agree, and how it has been recorded in the country where it takes place (by Armenians too most likely) AND it is the common usage by far as proven here again, it is still "wrong" to call it a rebellion? So if some Ottoman official were to have stated that Earth is round, it would be a POV statement to cite it here? I am having a hard time following the logic. What exactly is wrong calling a rebellion a rebellion again? Admittedly the proposed name is slightly less POV than the current one. ] (]) 15:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I too agree with Murat.] (]) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
| == Siege of Van 1915? == | |||
| The above clearly shows that we did not support the name change to Siege of Van but supported name change to Van Rebellion/Revolt. Please clarify why the name change cahnged the name to Siege of Van.Regards, ] (]) 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :While I would still prefer Van Resistance, Siege of Van sounds fine. '''Van Rebellion''' is, again, the term employed by the pro-Turkish publications and, as most respectable scholars agree, does not accurately reflect of what occurred in Van in 1915: a self-defense action by the Armenians against a government which wished to exterminate them. Van wasn't the first nor the last time the Ottoman government would use a "]"-like operation to make it appear that they were just quelling rebellions or responding to internal crises.--] (]) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I am happy to see a new face in these discussions, I warmly welcome you. If you look at the original discussion I have shown many '''nuetral''' publications and have insisted on not showing any biased Turkish or Azeri publication. The publications I listed support the term Rebellion, the fact that they are western professors show us that this is not a pro-Turkish stance but just a stance supported by a wide circle of academia. The question of self-defense is open to debate with sources further on however the name itself doesn't concern it. What concerns the name is the frequency of its use in scholarly publications which in this case Van Rebellion takes precedence. I am sorry but I do not believe in conspiracies and false flag operations in any instance. What I belive is what I see and what I see is a wide cirle of '''western''' who are not a member of the two ethnic sides, supporting the name Van rebellion and not Siege of Van. Regards, ] (]) 17:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just because they hail from the West doesn't mean they're not biased. Their scholarship has been characterized as shoddy by a wide range of authorities who have studied the issue far in depth than they have. Lewy is not an expert in the field of Armenian-Turkish studies while McCarthy's works have been subject to strong criticism. What you do or do not believe is not an issue here but it's indisputable that the Turks typically exaggerated isolated, minor events (the attempted assassination of a police chief, the ambush of a foot patrol, etc.) as proof that the Armenians were in revolt and used them as excuses to treat everyone else in a village or town as rebels. --] (]) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop throwing out claims but substantiate them with reliable evidence. Who has characterized their work as shoddy? Who are the authorities? Who has studied it far more "depth"? Any one who has written a book upon the subject and has reserached the subject in debth as well as going to meetings concerning the subject is deemed as an expert. Indicating otherwise is mearly slander. Who has criticised Mcarthy's work? You also seem to have predisposed opinions of the Turks "its indisputable that the Turks '''typically''' exaggerated isolated, minor events" well it is disputed because books that support two sides are written so to say it indisputable is a very bias tone. Please stop doing original research and provide sources. Regards, ] (]) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I see no reply to my reply. I must again underline the fact that the '''original''' discussion was opened and closed in favour of the name change to Van Rebellion. The second semi discussion initiated by Tagabeg resulted inconclusively, with two votes for and two votes against. Under the strong weight of reliable sources the name of the article must be changed to Van Rebellion. Regards, ] (]) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :All you have to do is read Mr. McCarthy's page on Misplaced Pages and see the long list of names of scholars who have critiqued his works and methodology. And again, these sort of declarations to introduce or make drastic and controversial sections by claiming that they are supported by reliable sources, when they clearly are not, are looked down upon and once more subject to being reverted. --] (]) 21:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| You are limiting the sources I and Tagabeg have shown to only McCarthy. But lets see who he is being criticised by Dadrian and Hovannisian, all of which are the leading scholars in the "pro" "genocide" side. Therefore it is natural for both parties to be critical of each other. However McCarthy is also praised by Donald Bloxham who is a professor of genocidal studies as well as Guenter Lewy.The name should be changed to Van Rebellion as my original proposal stated. ] (]) 06:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Are you still here ? Let's talk about ]. ] (]) 09:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Yes I am still here. This is because my proposal was to change the name to Van Rebellion and I stated many sources to back this up. In addition to this, you, in your own post showed the numerical weight of sources on the side of Van Rebellion also. I can not understand this change. The request move wasn't even supported by a wide consensus and there was limited to no discussion conducted upon the move, which is quite contrary to my proposal which was discussed for weeks. ] (]) 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : The '''Siege of Van''' is most common name. If we couldn't have found more neutral one like "Siege of Van", the "Van Rebellion" could have been one of the candidates. But since we found more neutral one, it's natural to chose it per ], ]. I make advance reservation to '''oppose''' to "Van Rebellion" :) ] (]) 09:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| in total refferal to Rebellion is 106. Therefore contrary to what you are saying Van Rebellion is the most common name.] (]) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can someone please reply to my comment, much appreciated,] (]) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Move? == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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: '''Move to ]''' - "Siege of Van" is the most common name for this topic and the 1915 event is the likeliest article to be sought for with that name. ] (]) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|1=Siege of Van}} – | |||
| * It already redirects, so there is no need for the parenthesis. ] (]) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * This was just moved a few days ago. Best to fully discuss if this is the primary topic. Also, the correct name for this article is still being discussed on the talk page and it could be changed. So this move would not be wise at this point in time. ] (]) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - No need for this discussion. It can be speedied. ] ] 00:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:I thought so. ] (]) 06:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::'''Comment''' there's a hatnote, so a discussion is better, to see if a disambiguation page should have existed instead. ] (]) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' according to {{la|Siege of Van}} that pagename used to be the article {{la|Siege of Van (1547)}} and not this article. ] (]) 05:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' - Can someone say why it's clear that ] is a better choice for the primary topic than ]? -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| I am currently going through all the sources listed in the article and will conduct a detailed assesment of them which will then be shared with my fellow editors. However my little quest has hit a snag. Many of the sources are books, books which can not be accessed through any other means but buying them. How can I check these sources? I need people who have inserted there the sources to provide links to them. If there are no links I kindly request a scan of the page at hand.Thank you for your cooperation, Regards, ] (]) 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Why is this not mentioned? == | |||
| (citing the city musuem) brought me here. But I searched for "Zeve" in this article but got no results. | |||
| There's only this: | |||
| "''On 14 May, a Friday evening, a group of ships sailed from Van. More ships followed the next day. Turks were evacuating their women and children. ... These retreating Ottoman forces experienced logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication.''" | |||
| Apparently nothing is written here about these who were not evacuted (and this evacuation was covered so briefly before the section named "The first evacuation" for some reason) while the Ottomans were "experiencing logistical shortages". An oversight? Or did really nothing bad at all happened to them after the fall of the city to the Russians and Armenians? | |||
| According to the Misplaced Pages article ], | |||
| "''Based on the official 1914 Ottoman Census the population of Van province consisted of '''179,422 Muslims''' and 67,797 Armenians. The Ottoman Census figures include only male citizens, excluding women and children. According to a more recent research, the corrected estimates for Van province (including women and children) was; '''313,000 Muslims''', 130,000 Armenians, and 65,000 others, including Assyrians.''" | |||
| That's quite a lot of people (hundreds of thousands), and actually is seems there were a lot more of them than Armenian citizens of the city just before WWI. So, what exactly happened to them during and after the fighting? Isn't it worth being explained to the readers? | |||
| Also the field "Casualties and losses" in the article's infobox is completely empty for the Turkish side, while the section "Casualties" (and it's sub-sections, "Atrocities" and "Reports and reactions") in the main body is covering exclusively Armenians too. --] (]) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Also I find it rather strange that out of some 130,000 Armenians in the province (including tens of thousands adult men) allegedly only 1300 fought - this claim should be probably double-checked. Plus, the infobox is oddly not mentioning the Russian forces at all. --] (]) 15:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| And Van city musuem has a whole section about it (described in quite broken English, yes): | |||
| ''3- The Section Of The Armenian Massacres This section was inaugurated on 2 April 1990, the freedom from occupation day of Van. It is organized with the aim of documenting the massacre undertaken by the Armenians during the occupation of Van in 1915 by the Russian troups reinforced with the Armenian brigands. Skeletons of the murdered Turks who died during the massacre at the Çavuşoğu Hay field of the Erciş District of Van and findings from the Zeve massacre where nearly 2500 Turks were killed at Zerve Village of the central District are exhibited. Among the findings revealed at a day-long archaelogical and anthropological excavation undertaken at Zerve by the Van Museum Directorate on 2 April 1990.'' | |||
| So what were the Ottoman losses, and what exactly happened to these over 300,000 Muslim civilians there, who were apparently a majority? The article seems to not be not explaining these issues at all, besides mentioning an "evacuation of women and children" (despite "logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication") in just one sentence before discussing "the first evacuation". --] (]) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :For the city of Van, 2/3rds of the population was Armenian. Almost all the rest were Kurds. In the 1890s Lynch gives the ethnic Turkish population of the city of Van at just some 900 people. No Turks at all lived in the villages. For Van's hinterland the Kurdish/Armenian populations were probably more equal. In the 19th century the Ottoman government changed the borders of the Van vilayet in order to make Armenians a minority population there. They added almost exclusively Kurdish-populated areas like Hakkari to it. No Russians fought during the siege - so why should there be figures for them in the infobox? How do you expect 130,000 Armenians to fight without weapons? Unarmed civilians don't appear as combatants in conflict infoboxes. The 1300 figure will be the armed Armenian force. All the opposing forces, Turkish army regulars or Kurdish irregulars, were armed. The Turkish army, government officials, and some Kurdish forces were evacuated. The rest of the Kurds just melted away back to the hills from where they came - some then fled westward towards the Ottoman lines with their entire tribal groups. ] 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a long internet history about the Zeve monument, probably all of it is lost history now. In the early 1990s there was a crazy American (he was actually committed for about 6 months) who used to go around message boards, especially AOL ones, posting Turkish propaganda regarding Zeve, and inflated impossible figures for Turks killed. Aparently he went crazy after his business, a shop named "Turkish Bazar", closed down due to lack of customers. He blamed its failure on Armenians who had objected to the shop's name and took it upon himself to post Genocide denialist material everywhere, almost all of it was about Van and Zeve. ] 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I said "Ottomans" and "Muslims", not "Turks". So, what happened to them (the combatants and civilians) during and after the incident - I couldn't get the info on it from the article at all. | |||
| *"No Russians fought during the siege" | |||
| This is what Misplaced Pages article ] says: "On 6 May, a major Russian offensive toward Anatolia developed. The Ottoman defense lines consisted of the X and XI Corps and the 5th Expeditionary Force at the north flank located beyond the province of Van. The north flank of the Russian advance, from Tortum valley toward Erzurum was not part of the operations in Van. However, as part of this Russian offensive, the Ottoman 1st Expeditionary Force and the Van Cavalry Brigade were pushed back from their initial positions by Russian and Armenian voluenteers advancing toward the city of Van. On 12 May, the town of Ardjish at the north of province of Van was relieved. Djevdet sent one cannon and two hundred men from the city of Van to face this group at the Bargiri (Muradiye). It was a late move and far too weak to stop this advance. On 6 May, the conflicts around the citadel of Van (in the Kale District) were over. On 17 May, Armenian civilian forces had control of the town. At the same time, the advance guard of the Russian forces, which pushed the 1st and 3rd Ottoman Cavalry Brigades from the city of Malazgirt since 11 May, reached the north of the province and extended up to the shores of Lake Van. At the same time, the advance guard of the Russian forces that were already in the town pushed the Ottoman forces with a continued press to the south of city. These retreating Ottoman forces experienced logistical shortages caused by the interdiction of lines of communication. Soon after the Russian regulars followed them." | |||
| It clearly says there was "the advance guard" of Russian regulars in the city during to the Ottoman retreat (and civilian evacuation) and <s>the city rebels</s> the Ottomans in Van even dispatched a part of their forces to <s>help</s> stop "Russian and Armenian voluenteers" that were incoming. --] (]) 04:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I would not count ''anything'' on Wikpedia to be a legitimate source. No Russians fought during the siege of Van and the events there were not part of a wider military campaign by the Ottoman forces. A few years ago this article was ruined by another editor who POV-warred this article to death by adding vast amounts of off-topic material to it. You said "Ottomans" and "Muslims", not "Turks" - but the Turkish propaganda about Zeve says Turks. ] 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't really care what "the Turkish propaganda says", I'd like this article to explain to me what happened to the Ottoman combatants (their losses, currently there's not a word about them) and the fate of the non-Christian, non-Armenian civilian population (the article only mentions their partial evacuation by ships, in just 1 sentence while somehow not even counting it as "the first evacuation" and not talking about their return at all). Can I get it? --] (]) 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| And if Turkish Misplaced Pages article counts as "the Turkish propaganda", it says 62% of the entire Muslim population of the province died. So, how many of them really died, how many were evacuated, how manyon their own fled, and so on? I have no idea, and the English Misplaced Pages skips the issue altogether. Right now it's completely Armenian-centric and so needs to be globalized. --] (]) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I feel this conversation is going nowhere constructive. The editor I mentioned earlier ruined this article by filling it with off-topic material, you seen to be wanting to add even more off-topic material. The siege of Van resulted from the response by the town's population to genocide (and - given escape was impossible - it was the only response they could make, short of lying down and meekly waiting to be killed). It was not directly connected to the wider military conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire or the troop movements of their armed forces. ] 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Wh-what? How is military and civilian losses of a warring side "off-topic material"? This is already covered -but only for the Armenian side exclusively. There's "Infobox military conflict", but one field in "Casualties and losses" is empty (and the other lists only civilians, btw). --] (]) 23:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| And even in purely genocide narrative, ] lists military losses, and for BOTH of the warring sides - is this being "offtopic"? And there were no German civilians to flee or die there, so they are not listed, but apparently in Van district there were hundreds of thousands of Muslims, right? --] (]) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The Warsaw Ghetto uprising does not include military or civilian casualties that occured outside Warsaw, nor does it detail battles between Soviet and German forces that took place hundreds of miles away from Warsaw. ] 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Do you want to say not a single one Muslim non-combatant resident of the city was not killed or wounded, was not evacuated, did not flee otherwise, or was not murdered during of after the "Siege of Van" military conflict? And do you want to say neither side had any military losses, too? --] (]) 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :We can only say what credible sources say. But it would be likely to be correct that no Muslim non-combatant residents of the city were killed. Van was divided into districts that were either almost entirely Christian or almost entirely Muslim (even areas that were mixed overall, such as the commercial districts, had their own separate Christian or Muslim zones. The genocidal killings were directed at the Christian populations, there was nobody targeting Muslim civilians or Muslim-populated districts, and any Muslims who died would have been combatants engaged in attacking or besieging the Christian districts and would have been either Ottoman army personel, irregular armed forces, or members of armed Kurdish groups. Things that happened outside of Van or its immediate hinterland were not part of the Siege of Van and so should not be included in the conflict infobox. A lot of cutting of off-topic stuff is needed on this article - maybe the various other "siege" articles on Misplaced Pages could be used as axamples of how to do it. ] 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Alright. Let me checkthis very article, okay? | |||
| *''Armenian civilian forces fought in two disconnected sets of battles inside the city of Van. These were the "Old City" (Kale District) and in the "Garden City" (Aygestan). The conflict in Garden City consisted of skirmishes along the Armenian and Muslim quarters. Both sides had fortified buildings and trenches along the opposite side.'' | |||
| This sounds to me very much like something like Beirut in 1975-1990. And quite a lot of civilians died in Beirut on all sides from this. | |||
| And whatever is "civilian forces" that "fought in two disconnected sets of battles"? They could be have been EITHER civilians or combatants. A ] is the one whois NOT "fighting battles", ] fights. "Fighting civilians", what's that? In the infobox's "Casualties and losses", there are "55,000 civilians"- supposedly, including such pseudo-"civilian" comabatants? Also, what "55,000" - killed, wounded, missing? The article does not say, but at least there is ANY figure there (once again, any kind of Ottoman losses is 100% ignored, just a completely empty field for them). | |||
| *The gallery "The city of Van during the Resistance" has a picture labeled "The cannons captured by the Armenians". The article also mentions their "improvised mortars". | |||
| So they even had artillery to fire on the enemy districts. Surely civilians are not really "unlikely" to die from cannon fire directed on "Muslim quarters"? | |||
| *''According to Ussher, on 19 April, Djevdet issued an order throughout the Van province, which read: "The Armenians must be exterminated. If any Muslim protects a Christian, first, his house shall be burnt; then the Christian killed before his eyes, then his family and then himself.'' | |||
| Um. So it was never actually carried out? | |||
| * ''On 14 May, a Friday evening, a group of ships sailed from Van. More ships followed the next day. Turks were evacuating their women and children.'' | |||
| What were they afraid of? | |||
| == Article trying to rewrite history == | |||
| And what happened to the evacuatees (how many?), and those who stayed (how many)? And when they returned, what happened to their homes in the meantime? | |||
| The title "Defense of Van" is trying to make the whole armed rebellion look like a "reaction" to the so called "genocide". | |||
| And what happened to the mosques? The article mentions a church being burned by Ottomans, describing it as an atrocity, while a caption of one photo says "1917, The church became the military headquarters". | |||
| While the reality is that the Ottoman Army reacted to the attempts made by Armenian gangs who were trying to carve up Anatolia, attacking the weakened Ottoman state to create "Big Armenia". Just like Greeks in the west were doing. | |||
| "Armenian civilian forces" is a phrase repeated 6 times in the article. And the infobox says "Armenian residents of Van", instead of properly identyfing them by Armenian revolutionary organizations (quoting the article: ''The Armenian leaders were Aram Manukian, who was the regional party leader of Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), Armenakis Yekarian from the ranks of Armenakans, Nikoghayos Poghos Mikaelian (Ishkhan) who was member of ARF'') and their militias. | |||
| As explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4 | |||
| Or is it all "off-topic" too, somehow? --] (]) 16:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already said that I think this article is very badly written. I should have a go at editing it to fix the worst of its failings. However, your questions are starting to suggest to me an aim towards the denial of the truth rather than a neutral pair of eyes raising useful points. I'm not helping you building you a platform to shout unpleasant opinions from, so I will not respond to more questions from you. ] 18:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::One mitigating reason for the article's current state is that it was written when the article was titled "Van Resistance". One particular editor felt that this broader title alowed him to add a lot of extra content. Now that the article is titled "Siege of Van" its content can become more focused. ] 18:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| And quite unbelievable that a "poor massacred victims" are able to capture other Ottoman cities: https://imgur.com/vVk1HWA | |||
| And what's "the truth"? I'm asking questions, mostly based on this very Misplaced Pages article (English one, and I'm sure it's quite different on the Turkish Misplaced Pages) and all I'm getting is you saying things like that "'''''any''' Muslims who died would have been combatants engaged in attacking or besieging the Christian districts and would have been either Ottoman army personel, irregular armed forces, or members of armed Kurdish groups''" - is that ''the truth''? Because I don't think so. I think they really had this artillery (portrayed on the photo) that they were using to fire on ''Muslim quarters'', I think this whole ''Turks were evacuating their women and children'' thing did happen and was really caused by something, or at very least a threat of something. | |||
| We have all the data. Sooner or later this article will be titled correctly. Even if not, it doesn't change reality. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I asked you to provide "the truth" and figures, but you know what I've got? ''The denial'', denial that ''any'' Muslim civilian losses could possibly happen (btw, refugees are also losses, and are also often very likely to die even from non-combat/atrocity causes - for example, the extremely high mortality rate among the Kurdish refugees during the exodus from Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991, if we talk about Kurds, and especially among '' women and children'', about 17% of the young children who even managed to reach the border witch Turkey died in 1991). --] (]) 07:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Defense of Van (1915) == | |||
| And let me tell you what Van-based Armenian revolutionary organizations were capable of - ] (I'm sure it would be described quite differently if it was a Kurdish slaughter of "all" Armenian men somewhere?). Books that I just checked (through Google) descibe it differently and in various ways, from "little damage to the Kurd encampment", to total extermination of the entire tribe everyone including women and children, but let's just use the English Misplaced Pages as we are here, that is an organized and successful act of gendercide directed against an entire (small) ethnic group. Now mind you that the ringleaders of this atrocity were also among the Armenian revolutionary commanders in Van 1915 (one of the raid's leaders was even killed in the 1915 fighting), described by this article here as "Armenian civilian forces" and apparently believed by you to be beyond the bounds of possibility to kill "any" civilians. --] (]) 08:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Van is a province of the Ottoman Empire. This is a rebellion. In order for this to be called a defense, there must be a state in that land. It is referred to as "siege of van" in many places on the internet. This article is named and content from a biased point of view. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == removing POV tag with no active discussion per ] == | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at ]: | |||
| ::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever: | |||
| ::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved | |||
| ::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given | |||
| ::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023 == | |||
| Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- ] (]) 02:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Defense of Van (1915)|answered=yes}} | |||
| There's no "ongoing discussion", because the other person refuses to either discuss it or fix the article. But yes, nobody had joined it. --] (]) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The Armenian side is the Armenian revolutionary federation, not "Armenian fedayi" ] (]) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ]] 🍁 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Unbalanced Article == | |||
| This article is biased against the Ottomans, The biggest problem is the title, Van is a provience of the Ottoman Empire and the armed Armenian population isn't defending Van they are rebelling against Ottoman Empire. In English (which is the language of this article) defense means "the action of defending from or resisting attack" which isn't true because Armenians aren't defending Van. Rebellion would be more fitting for this article because The word Rebellion's meaning is: "an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler". Which is true since Armenian population is attacking the Ottoman Empire. ] (]) 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Requested move (2014)== | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| :We write what ] state, the above comment is an unfounded opinion. - ] (]) 12:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The result of the proposal was '''moved'''. --] (]) 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is exactly unfounded? That Van is a province of the Ottoman Empire? ] (]) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you explain us why it is an unfounded opinion instead of just calling it one? Here's the meaning of the word defense according to Oxford: "the act of protecting somebody/something from attack, criticism, etc." (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/defense) ] (]) 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Results == | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Defense of Van (1915)}} – ], ]. See below ] ] 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Defense of Van (1896)}} | |||
| Please note that per ], results "may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Especially because this is a controversial topic, we need to follow the template guidance. I encourage editors to read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. Thanks! ] (]) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| "Siege of Van" is not an appropriate title. It is not the most common name as claimed in the 2011 discussion. Google Books reveals only 284 results for as opposed to , which shows almost twice as much results (549). Interestingly enough, the phrases "Defense" "Van" 1915 armenian show 2,500 results. For those who will be quick to call "Defense of Van" Armenian POV I suggest you look at all the authors who prefer calling it a "defense"/"self-defense": | |||
| *] "On 20 April 1915, the Armenians of Van rose up in self-defense, an action depicted by the Turks as a revolutionary uprising." | |||
| *] "Their five-week battle with the Turks was {{underline|not a rebellion, but legitimate self-defence}}, a reaction to the terrorism of the government's representative, Djevdet, which he had directed against the entire Armenian community." | |||
| *] "The gallant Armenian defense of Van has already been touched upon." | |||
| *]/Matthew J. Gibney "A few days later,Turkish soldiers attacked some Armenian villages around Van, massacring Armenians. In the town ofVan,the Armenians dug trenches around the Armenian quarter and began {{underline|a desperate defense of their community}}." | |||
| --] ] 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Page name == | |||
| :'''Support''' - The article was renamed Siege from Resistance based off common name to begin with. --] (]) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. First, the GBooks results are not really as you present them: the "" search actually has 39 hits, while "" has 34. So they're about equally in circulation.<br>Second, "siege" is simply more logical and slightly less POV: to defend something, logically someone has to attack it first, right? So, the "siege" encodes both the attack and the defense side. I said, "slightly less POV" because, quote from a book, "'' What the Armenians would later call “the defense of Van”''..." the term "defense" ''leans'' on an Armenian side (which is not necessarily a bad thing per ], but here we have viable alternatives). "Siege" is simply more neutral.<br>Third, under the proposal, "defense" would require a disambiguation, while "siege", at least currently, comes as a more natural disambiguation (]). ] (]) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Do not forget that "defense" is spelled "defence" in British English. So, therefore, we have 34 "Defense of Van" and . That is a total of 66, almost as twice as "Siege of Van" | |||
| :: ''"Siege" is simply more neutral.'' How? It was a deliberate attempt to massacre the Armenian population. I've clearly given very authoritative sources above that call it an act of defense/self-defense. The ] article defines it as: "a military blockade of a city or fortress {{underline|with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault}}." There was no such thing happening in Van. The Ottoman government's intent was to massacre the Armenian civilian population. | |||
| :: ] leans on French side, so? That doesn't make it French POV, because it is accepted by the majoroty of sources as a "liberation", the same way the events in Van are considered a "defence" by Armenians. --] ] 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Support''' Per commonname. Siege of Van doesn't accurately describe what happened in Van in April of 1915. ] (]) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I had initially closed this as moved, but I think there are still more questions to be answered. Foremost, what will happen to "Siege of Van"? Will it continue to redirect to ]? Where does ] come into play? Will we still need ]? --] (]) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I suggest redirecting "Siege of Van" to ] and adding this note at the top of that article: | |||
| {{about|the 1548 Ottoman siege of Van|1915 events, sometimes known as Siege of Van|Defense of Van (1915)}} | |||
| --] ] 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, in that case, we'd want to ''move'' ] to ]. ] shouldn't redirect to ]. And maybe it will be best to keep the dab, then, if there are a total of three events that could be called "Siege of Van." I'll make the moves accordingly tomorrow if there are no objections. --] (]) 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> | |||
| I think it's better to call the article not "defense", but the battle of Van, since the fighting included not only the siege of the city by the Ottomans, but also the Russian offensive to break the siege, which in general saved the city. | |||
| ==Title== | |||
| @] since you canceled my edit, can you explain why? ] (]) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Defense of Van? It should be called the Rebllion of Van or Van Rebellion as city residents rebelled against its own government. I guess we need to change the title of the ] to the Defense of Waco! -] (]) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Moves in contentious topics should go through ] which I already mentioned in my edit summary. You're not allowed to move contentious articles without a discussion, this is the rule on Misplaced Pages. But I personally wouldn't launch a Move because it's clear that "Defense of Van 1915" is the more common title for this article: | |||
| ::Give me a break. You're just another Turk who is brainwashed in to thinking your country never mistreated Armenians (to put it mildly). Either accept reality or move on. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :*"Defense of Van 1915" | |||
| :*"Battle of Van 1915" | |||
| :] (]) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I'm not going to change the name just like that, I'm sorry. But still, this is not such a big difference in hits, simply because the name creates a feeling of a purely defensive clash, although this is not true. ] (]) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:00, 30 August 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defense of Van (1915) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met.svg)
Article trying to rewrite history
The title "Defense of Van" is trying to make the whole armed rebellion look like a "reaction" to the so called "genocide".
While the reality is that the Ottoman Army reacted to the attempts made by Armenian gangs who were trying to carve up Anatolia, attacking the weakened Ottoman state to create "Big Armenia". Just like Greeks in the west were doing.
As explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
And quite unbelievable that a "poor massacred victims" are able to capture other Ottoman cities: https://imgur.com/vVk1HWA
We have all the data. Sooner or later this article will be titled correctly. Even if not, it doesn't change reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.180.9 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Defense of Van (1915)
Van is a province of the Ottoman Empire. This is a rebellion. In order for this to be called a defense, there must be a state in that land. It is referred to as "siege of van" in many places on the internet. This article is named and content from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.138.126 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Armenian side is the Armenian revolutionary federation, not "Armenian fedayi" Jshmardutyun (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Unbalanced Article
This article is biased against the Ottomans, The biggest problem is the title, Van is a provience of the Ottoman Empire and the armed Armenian population isn't defending Van they are rebelling against Ottoman Empire. In English (which is the language of this article) defense means "the action of defending from or resisting attack" which isn't true because Armenians aren't defending Van. Rebellion would be more fitting for this article because The word Rebellion's meaning is: "an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler". Which is true since Armenian population is attacking the Ottoman Empire. UpgradeWasTaken (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- We write what WP:RS state, the above comment is an unfounded opinion. - Kevo (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- What is exactly unfounded? That Van is a province of the Ottoman Empire? 76.22.119.7 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain us why it is an unfounded opinion instead of just calling it one? Here's the meaning of the word defense according to Oxford: "the act of protecting somebody/something from attack, criticism, etc." (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/defense) UpgradeWasTaken (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Results
Please note that per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters, results "may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Especially because this is a controversial topic, we need to follow the template guidance. I encourage editors to read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Page name
I think it's better to call the article not "defense", but the battle of Van, since the fighting included not only the siege of the city by the Ottomans, but also the Russian offensive to break the siege, which in general saved the city. @Vanezi Astghik since you canceled my edit, can you explain why? Dushnilkin (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Moves in contentious topics should go through WP:RM which I already mentioned in my edit summary. You're not allowed to move contentious articles without a discussion, this is the rule on Misplaced Pages. But I personally wouldn't launch a Move because it's clear that "Defense of Van 1915" is the more common title for this article:
- Vanezi (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm not going to change the name just like that, I'm sorry. But still, this is not such a big difference in hits, simply because the name creates a feeling of a purely defensive clash, although this is not true. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- B-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- B-Class Armenian articles
- Mid-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance C-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Turkey articles
- Low-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages