Talk:Defense of Van (1915): Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia B‑class Defense of Van (1915) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Ottoman / World War I B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Ottoman military history task force World War I task force

Archives

Archive 1

Makalp, can you tell us what are you disputing so we can undisputed. --VartanM 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the defintion of "dispute".Must.^{T C} 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition - not really, nice try again, name one thing wrong :)z72.79.62.219 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text added by OttomanRefrence because the source provided for the claim said no such thing. See for yourself. [1] VartanM 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayvdb, I have reverted your insertion of "Armenian Massacre" for the obvious reason that it's a genocide, as the title of the article suggests. - Fedayee (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs much cleanup. It reads, not surprisingly, as a memorial to the Armenians who in reality rebelled against their own government and gave the keys to this old Turkish city to the enemy. They brutalized the Muslims they could get their hands on and eventually failed completely but caused much misery on both sides not mention making it impossible for Armenians who had inhabited these lands for centuries to remain behind. The whole paragraph about governor Jevdet's personality and mood shifts and his bad character was a little too much, and a little amusing. There is much work to be done. I will come back.--Murat (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, as well as most other users, know that's a blatant lie. The fact that the Ottoman forces goaded Armenians to take up arms is quite well documented, with the clear intention being the extermination of the townspeople themselves. If you wish to alter the reality, rest assured other users will revert you. Historical revisionism is not tolerated.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe calling a user "liar" constitutes a personal attack. I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedai rules again. But I do understand your frustration at the stubborness of facts. One does not need more than the Armenian sources listed here and the content of this article to refute this baseless "self-defence" argument. Notice the prodigious use of "act of self defense, self defensively, etc." in this and similar articles? That alone tells a story. It is described right here at length how Dashnak and Hinchak settled and prospered in Van. What do you think these terrorist organizations were concerned with? Cevdet Paşa (not Djevdet, or Jevdet or Bey)relates in letters to Istanbul how Armenians were in advanced stages of a rebellion in Van, long before the Van Rebellion (isyan). There was no goading however more pleasant this may sound to some. There were long preparations for a rebellion, collaboration with Russians (enemy invading the country), all listed and explained in this very article. What Armenians were up to is throughly documented. I would really like to see some reference that verifies and proves that Cevdet Paşa had intentions and/or orders to "exterminate" the Armenians of Van. We will come back to this again. I highly recommend looking at a mirror occasionally, and taking your own medicine.--Murat (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hudavendigar, no-one is preventing you to support your point. You can add your facts sentence by sentence (fact by fact). However you do not do this. Force on us your conclusions. It works like this: if there is a revolution; the article should include the elements of an rebellion. Current article does not include these elements. The WP:CITE should be your guidance. You should use Template cite book for every fact you brought into the article, so that we can check if those fats are correct. You are constantly forcing us your own conclusion. "I said it is rebellion, You will accept it." does not work as this is not Turkey and you can not force on us 301. --Seemsclose (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a book, dedicated solely to Van Rebellion in the reference. It was removed. Skipped over countless authentic Turkish sources and did not even bother to challenge bogus claims by Armenian sources. At some point you folks will have to deal with established facts and stop vandalising real info, complain about fromats and commas and such. To the rest of the World this was a rebellion and that is how it is recorded, from NYT to Turkish records of the time. Facts are well established, not by me. I am not forcing any conclusions, I am just trying to have the relevant facts stick here. I guess that is too much.--Murat (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hudavendigar, using the "title of a book" does not count as a citation! Citations are needed for the "facts". You did not bring any fact into the article. Your changes are limited with the first paragraph, which wikipedia clearly states how to write a WP:LEAD. You can not add arguments that are not supported in the article. The article is full of citations against your position. You have to read the WP:CITE. Also, your own invention "insert footnote text here" is totally unacceptable way of creating citations. The WP:CITE also tells how to object the positions, but as like other Genocide denials, You did not read a basic text. Litteracy of denialists did not changed since Ataturk. Only changed was denialists become more uncivilized, as they become more illiterate. The book you are using (you did not even use the facts inside the book) is full of crap. I bet, You "User:Hudavendigar" did not spend your single "dime" on it, a by product of illiteracy. I bet you have not even read it. You can not tell us what is stated in the page 20 at the 3th paragraph. If this book is the proof of your lie (you claim: "I am not forcing any conclusions" without adding any facts), you are supporting the title of a book without even reading it. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such bluster and poison. The edit made is exactly where it belongs, in the first paragraph. Rebellion is the very subject of the article. Spend your dime, read the book and keep an open mind.--Murat (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, you performed a "Shame full act," and caught red handed. You tried to use a source which you do not own. It is your "Black Book," as Orhan Pamuk put it correctly. Turks believe things beyond knowing what they believe. You have a position without knowing what it was about, you tried to impose on us. Armenians care for the facts, realities, and look beyond the titles. This article is full with those edits. You did not add a single fact to the article which could prove your point. You can not add your "title" in wikipedia if the article does not support it and it is wp:or. Also, you will not buy or read this book of yours. You are scared to find out how unrealistic its content. If there is no single cite from your book (you claimed in your first message) in this article, because of that single fact. It is easy to believe to a lie ("or to a title"), if not know what is inside the "title". I do my homework. I read the source before defending. Armenians support positions with facts, not using "titles." Seemsclose (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to prove here that maybe you are not capable of making any truly ojective edits and contributions to this topic. Please read over above statements and then judge, if you can, if you sound like a person who can be honest and impartial about what you edit in and out as wiki policies demand. The whole article is about a rebellion. See Webster definition. Argue facts and details. Ranting and spewing is not an argument. I know the topic well though, so you need to do much better. You can not pick and choose references and facts as you wish, especially being so blatantly partial. It does not work that way.--Murat (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except title of a book, you did not add any significant information to the article. You even can not defend why the book is "titled" as it is, because you did not read your own source. You claim that article is full of lies, but They are all backed by internationally accepted publications, page by page referenced. YOU, even, do not know how to use WP:CITE. I showed the article (which is free on this side) 4U hoping that U 'll read, learn and use. But you proved that you did not read the manual and learn how to tag a source, today you performed edits that do not obey the WP:style guide. You claim "I know the topic well though" but you can not back your claims by use of significant sources. Your ignorance also extends: You do not know how the conflict began. You do not know how the details developed. You do not know why it is a rebellion, though you think it is a rebellion. You do not know why Turks turned their guns against civilians, even though you think They are not criminals.. Your edits are WP:POV (not baked by sources) and deemed to be reverted. --Seemsclose (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When finished with personal attacks and general venting and complaints about esthetics, point out what exactly is the problem in calling a rebellion, a rebellion. I did not even attempt a general clean up so sorely needed. Yes, my editing skills are in poor shape and you are more than welcome to help correct those rather than erasing. But get to the argument, go beyond rage and hate.--Murat (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Titles of Books" are not references!!! "The Burning Tigris" does not a reference to a river which burns! the title of the book "Van Rebellion" is not a reference to rebellion of the Armenian people. A reference is something that can be verified, such as a "fact." There is no single fact that defines the activities of Armenians were in a rebellion """""in the article""""". Let me help you to understand: A corrupt police officer comes to your house and shoots your 3 year old child. If you kill that officer, it is not a manslaughter, but self-defense. You claim Van Resistance was a rebellion (manslaughter of the officer), but I claim it is self-defense (defense of their life). Only way you can prove that Van Resistance is a rebellion, if you can prove it is not a "self-defense." You want to "go beyond rage and hate;" find citations (facts) that prove "how the conflict began. How the details of the conflict developed. And if these were precursors of a REBELLION." You did not do it, yet. --Seemsclose (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will not choose and pick references to suit your distortions. If facts inconvenience you, that is a personal matter. Reference is NOT the title of the book, the book itself, titled "Rebellion at Van" is the reference. It is NOT a novel, but an in depth and scientific review of the events in their proper context. Again, come back to the argument and stop vandalism. Let me help you. Here is the definition of rebellion from Webster's:

Rebellion, Noun

1. Refusal to accept some authority or code or convention; "each generation must have its own rebellion"; "his body was in rebellion against fatigue".

2. Organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another.

I challenge you to show how all the events of the very article you and your likes have constructed does NOT fall into this standard description above. This very article describes in numerous passages "revolting" Armenians. You are confusing the justification for a rebellion with the fact of a rebellion. We can certainly argue if Armenians were morally and otherwise justified in rebelling against their own state, but there is no argument that this was a well organized, enemy supported, armed rebellion against a government. Read this again, maybe it will sink. Reference stays.--Murat (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put your dime to where your claims are and buy the book. Your nationalism is empty if you do not even read your own publication. People like U claim they will die for their nation, but they do not buy a book, and in the process purge their words using false references!! It is your fault, do not blame anyone, You should stop citing sources that you have not read it. You have to learn how to add information into Wikipedia, read carefully WP:CITE. Learn the rules of the game. This is the last message from me to U. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant threats and abuse has become a lttle tiresome. Let's read the actual wiki policy and recommendations on citeations:

"When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are NOT required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view."

Now, which part of this is not clear? What is clear is that you have not read or absorbed these basic common-sense guidelines. You are the least qualified to lecture anyone about etiquette from what I can see. As an ardent defender of a particular POV, it is ironic you should mention this noble wiki policy while you abuse it repeatedly. There is nothing more appropriate than including in the references a book titled "The Armenian Rebellion at Van" in an article that attempts to descibe the said events. Stop vandalism, stop harassment and address the facts. Argue, dispute, reason but stop trying to cover the weakness of your POV by slinging mud and threats. Unless you come up with a good reason why this reference does not belong here, it will be here.--Murat (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone publishes a book titled "Why the Earth is Flat", the mere existance of that book does not allow an editor to add content from it to an entry about the geology of the Earth. Get it? Meowy 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing that with such limited sense of logic and childish arguments you seem to feel qualified to make any judgement here at all. If someone did publish a book titled "Why the Earth is Flat", and actually backed it up with facts and analysis, that would be an interesting read indeed. You are under the impression that you can edit history by editing these pages. It does not work that way. Still no argument WHY these sources are wrong or misleading, details, dates, events, documents etc., thats how you make an argument. Having spent your life here one would think you would learn that by now.--Murat (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting and amusing read, as quite a lot of the Turkish propaganda is interesting and amusing to read , but none of it would be citable in an encyclopedia entry because, regardless of how full it could be with facts and analysis, the world is not flat. Meowy 23:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to discussion. Is there any credible objection out there to inclusion of the book titled "Armenian Rebellion at Van" as a reference in this article? It is a modern and well researched piece of academic work, covering, as luck would have it, the exact events that is the subject of this article. I would like to express my intention here to inject some impartial analysis and data into this article, starting with this book. Open to all other constructive and collaborative work.--Murat (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Resistance Վանի Հերոսամարտ
Armenian troops holding a defense line against Turkish forces in the walled city of Van in May 1915.
Date April 19, 1915 - May 6, 1915 Location City of Van, vilâyet of Van Result Armenian victory; avoiding the deportations and massacres at the vilâyet of Van.
Belligerents
Ottoman Empire	Armenian residents of Van	Russian Empire
Commanders and leaders
Jevdet Bey Rafael de Nogales	Armenak Yekarian Aram Manougian	General Trukhin Sargis Mehrabyan
Strength
3rd Army - 5,000	Civilian - 1,500 (in the city)	2nd Battalion of Araratian volunteer brigade
Casualties and losses
	55,000 civilians [1]

Dear User:Meow; You do not have to insult me by stating "was laughably inaccurate." The Russian relief was part of the conflict. Ottoman fores did left the town as they did not want to involve with two side armed fight. This did not mean they stop fighting against around the province. The Armed conflicts were not limited with the city itself. Thanks--Seemsclose (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the 1 june edit by you because: firstly it was very badly written English, so bad I coundn't really correct it. Secondly, the introductory paragraph is meant to be the briefest possible summary of the article - there is no need to add minor details like the names of participants. Thirdly, the content added to the conflict infobox was not valid. You cannot add flags that were not even invented when the event took place, or armies and their flags (i.e. Russia) that did not have a direct participation in the event. Meowy 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, on reading your edit, at first I thought you were some proxy editor for banned Murat, peddling the Armenian rebellion line. An understandable reaction from me, since what other reason could there be for the fabricated history you placed in the conflict infobox? This articel is about a specific incident - the armed resistance of Van's Armenian citizens. It does not deal directly with the wider conflict of WW1 in eastern Turkey, nor directly with events that happened after the siege was lifted. Meowy 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets do it one by one. 1) Against the flags on the info box. Ottoman, and Russian flags were century old. I guess, you have problem with the Armenian flag. Then help me! What could we use? If we can not use flag of Democratic Republic of Armenia, which really did not designed exactly in May 29 1918. 2) "Russia did not have direct participation" O.K if you want to remove Russian flag than which flag "General Trukhin" was using? 3) I'm really tired of this language, argument. You need to explain one by one which grammatical mistakes are there? Because each argument used in the WP:LEAD is already in the article. Thank you. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians of the "City of Van" fought against Ottoman Army by "themselves". That is TRUE. But conflict also included a third party, the "Russians". Denying the fact that Ottoman Army faced two forces, even if Armenian citizens did not get help from Russian Army, is a POV. Do you want to deny the fact that Ottoman Army had two fronts? --Seemsclose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you actually are a propagandist here to peddle Turkish nationalist propaganda? The Van "rebellion" was a conflict about survival, in which the civilian population of Van was compelled to defend itself against those who wished to completely exterminate it. It had nothing to do with countries that did not yet exist. It had nothing to do with advancing Russian armies - not a single Russian soldier fired a single shot during the whole event. There is no place here for your flag-waving lies that it was a rebellion to establish an Armenian Republic inside Ottoman territory. Meowy 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to involve with a fellow Armenian. But lets drop this "Defense beyond truth." I'm not defending "it is a rebellion." Even the sources I use shows that A) The conflicts extended beyond the city. The map Image:Armeniangenocidemap.gif by Vahagn Avedian, from the website http://www.armenica.org clearly demonstrates this. You can not defend Armenian position if you do not know it. The Armenian defense was not limited with the city. This is also included in the article, as the article points that initial conflict did not begin in the city (read the article). B) Armenian volunteers involved with the conflicts. It is internationally recognized that Khetcho "Commander of cavalry units" died during the follow-up activities of the forces left the city. If you argue, beyond the accepted positions, You are not acting better than the Turks. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Van rebellion took place within the context of the Armenian Genocide, which involved the organised massacres of tens of thousands of Armenians throughout the Van basin. The events detailed in this article are to do with events in and around Van city, not events in that wider genocide (though they could be briefly mentioned later in the body of the article). I had already changed part of the introductory paragraph to read "based mostly in the city of Van" to allow for the fact that fighting directly connected to the siege took place at Varagavank and other nearby locations. But the majority of the event, and the core of the event, took place within the confines of the city of Van. And, as I pointed out earlier, the first paragraph of an article is meant to give only a concise summary of the event - it is not there to repeat everything that is contained in the rest of the article. According to the photo's details, Khetcho died during fighting at Bitlis. Meowy 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bitlis was in 1916. The Province of Van, during Ottoman Empire extended to western part of Lake Van. Khetcho did not die at Bitlis, the title even clearly say's "close to Bitlis," which was west of Lake Van and in the province of Province of Van. The reason, he died there was they were following the criminals. You are 1) Reshaping the events limited to conflicts in the city. That is WRONG. You have to explain the conflict as it was true to history. 2) we (civilians) fought against Ottoman forces. Russian's fought against the Ottoman forces during the same time, though separate. Ottoman force in the article engaged with "Armenian civilians" (part of Genocide) and Russian forces (part of wider WWI) at the same time. These events happened at the same time in the same "Van basin" that your are mention in your response. The article (also your position) has to be based on Truth. "A concise summary of the event" has to be true to history, giving all the details. Instead of denying Russian forces, you have to mention these two sources (Armenian-Russian) are not linked, though happened at the same time. If you stick to Truth, you are sticking to Armenian position. Seemsclose (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a f***ing mess, and you aren't helping. Why can't certain editors get it into their heads what an encyclopaedia is for. Why do you feel the need to load this article down even further with useless off-topic information? The entry needs a radical pruning, all the stuff about the hstory of Van, Hamidian massacres, battle of Sarikamish, Persian campaign, should go. Meowy 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop using trolls to revert information. It is disgusting. Every time you involve a revert, second comes by the same user. Second: The Armenians of Van were not Armenians of Russian Armenia. The history section tells the local Armenians were active in Van (economic, social, political) through out our history and resisted genocide not only once. This is a significant background information, considering article is about Resistance in Van. Any other way of telling the history of Van Resistance is a violation of WP:NPOV. I have grandfather involved with those resistance and I personally view Van was an Armenian town, (obviously not yours). The Armenian social life in Van and the "Hamidian Massacres, 1895-96" are SIGNIFICANT part of the VAN RESISTANCE, as it tells the conditions. My family was there at the time. This is the last massage from me to U. This conversation is becoming disgusting. It is not only Turks who do not know how to communicate. There are fanatic Armenians who close their senses to Truth. --Seemsclose (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was mostly expanded by OttomanReference, an adroit denier, unlike some other editors. The rest of the article comes from various Armenian editors who have attempted to "undo" the damage. For example, we know that there had long been an Armenian presence in Van, but that information (under "History of Van") belongs in the actual Van, Turkey (or Van Province) articles and not here. But now the whole thing reads more like an amateurish jumble of Armenian and Turkish interpretations rather than the concise, informative, and objective article it should be. Hakob (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

There is "Truth," and is higher than any other position. The fight against "denialist rhetoric" as performed with this edit can not be achieved. It is a clear WP:Vandalism. The significe of "Van Resistance" when compared to Urfa Resistance and Zeitun Resistance (1915) was that Ottoman sources claim it was a "Revolution". The argument is old and historialy significant as it found its way in the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. During the last 30 years, both sides, (interested can read The Burning Tigris) and many other non verifiable (proves the public intrest) sources (739,000 distinct web pages from Google) covered this issue. The Armenian position; there were three armed forces in the region (Armenian civilians, Russian military, Ottoman & Kurdish forces), BUT they were not working together, and THUS it was not a revolution. There is no single referenced sentence in the article proves there was a collaboration. I'm against edits that try to represent Armenian position by a) deleting the Russian Relief (Russian forces in the region) b) removing the significant discussions (post analysis) regarding the event. These edits are WP:NPOV violation, They are WP:Vandalism. --Seemsclose (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to prevent further fights over the page, User:Khoikhoi‎ blocked the page. If anyone does not bring specific objections the version I have been working is much improved version of the current page. You can reach it from User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎ I would like this page to be replaced with my version. Thanks for all the advance help!!! Seemsclose (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want the current version to be replaced by your much inferior version. You do not seem to understand the purpose of the introductory paragraph of an article, and what it should and should not consist of. Nor, frankly, is your grasp of English high enough for you to attempt such things. Meowy 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section to realise why the version proposed by Seemsclose is not suitable. There is no justification in protecting this page. There is not a content dispute. It is a dispute with an editor who has failed to understand how a Wikipedia article should be composed and failed to understand the proper uses of the individual sections of an article (in this case the lead section and the conflict infobox). Meowy 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look at your reference. 1)Formatting: (everything, including references, fits the WP:STYLE. 1.1 Bold title: The "Van Resistance", also "Battle of Van" is bolded. 1.2 Sections and table of contents: there is clear sections and contents fits to the title of the sections. 2 Content of the lead 2.1 Establish context The sentences are all cited, the individual sentences have details in the article. There is no sentence in the lead that is not explained in the article. 2.2 Provide an accessible overview: The lead gives overview of the events begining to end. 2.2.1 Etymology and pronunciation: If I missed any pronunciation, I'm asking your Help!. 2.3 Relative emphasis The lead is a balanced summary of the article. Anything that is missing in the article is not added to the Lead until missing content is established. If I missed your point could you be more Specific? --Seemsclose (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't getting it. Didn't you read Hakob's correct characterisation of the article as an "amateurish jumble". You are making it even worse! Please, just leave the article alone. Meowy 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your position to WP:LEAD. It is only 6 sentences. It is not clear from your message what is the opposition. Thank you for your efforts in advance. Seemsclose (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 sentences? Not likely! It - User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎ - has some 35 rambling, badly-written lines in the lead section. Meowy 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you focus on content, (rambling, badly-written) is not constructive. I try to stay representing source as close as possible (fairly, proportionately and without bias). When there are so many sources, my own voice gets lost among them. I try to make sure, I stay reliable to the sources, rather than my own personal wording. I do better if I do not stay true to the source. But then there would be no need to rewrite this article. Your advice is more then welcome, but could you be more specific WHY they are not suitable? --Seemsclose (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities are not improving this article and are, in fact, preventing its improvement. I will not be correcting or advising your rambling badly-written material, I will just remove it. Meowy 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement process, Editors welcome to produce "objective" opinions. You say, "I will not be correcting or advising your rambling badly-written material." That I respect, but You also say "I will just remove it," that falls into vandalism. If that is the path you prefer, it is your choice. --Seemsclose (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N Not done – I see no consensus to do this at this time. Editprotected is only for edits that are uncontroversial or not disputed. See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests#Making_a_request for more instructions regarding editprotected requests. Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My core objection to Seemsclose's suggestions is that he is ruining the lead section. He wants to expand it beyond all reasonable limits by adding trivial details. He doesn't seem to understand that it is just meant to be a concise summary of the essential points contained in the body of the article. So the dispute is not really about content. I don't doubt that I would take issue with some of the additions on content grounds if they were to be added to the body of the article - but I object to all of them at the moment because of where Seemsclose wants to place them. That objection will not change, because the objection is based on what the lead section should be and what it should not be. What we should be aiming for is (to use Hakob's words) the "concise, informative, and objective article it should be". Meowy 00:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your response. You say "where Seemsclose wants to place them" I would appriciate if U point what is misplaced. My lead is 1,843 words and two paragraphs. The WP:LEAD talks about 30,000 words. Your objection can not be the size, as it is 1,843 words. First paragraph tells basic stages of the conflict (dates, parties, results). The second paragraph is about importance. Could you point what content I missed to include as you say "should be" and what should be removed as you said "it should not be". --Seemsclose (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it as clearly as I can - I support none of your proposed changes to the lead section. I don't think you will ever get a consensus for those changes and no other editor is currently supporting you. If the changes are made without consensus, I will attempt to revert them because I think they are detrimental to the article. You are continuing to fail to understand what a lead section should be and what size it should be. The 30,000 characters talked about in WP:LEAD is the size of the whole article, not the lead section. Meowy 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently 19 KB and 2870 words. [[2]] You are proposing a lead section that is 2/3rds the size of the current article! Are you serious? Please, just drop the whole proposal. Make that the consensus, so that the article can be unprotected and the flaws in the body section can start to be corrected. If you respect the history of the events detailed in this article, you will do that. Meowy 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it as clearly as I can - I support none of your proposed changes to the lead section. I don't think you will ever get a consensus for those changes and no other editor is currently supporting you. If the changes are made without consensus, I will attempt to revert them because I think they are detrimental to the article. You are continuing to fail to understand what a lead section should be and what size it should be. The 30,000 characters talked about in WP:LEAD is the size of the whole article, not the lead section. Meowy 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know lead section we are talking about is not for the "current version" which is poorly written, poorly cited, do not have appropriate tone and voice to an wikipedia article, but the version that I have been working on. In your [previous message, clearly demonstrated that you are aware what we are talking about, and that is my version.

The article is currently 19 KB and 2870 words. [[3]] You are proposing a lead section that is 2/3rds the size of the current article! Are you serious? Please, just drop the whole proposal. Make that the consensus, so that the article can be unprotected and the flaws in the body section can start to be corrected. If you respect the history of the events detailed in this article, you will do that. Meowy 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article is not finished. If you help me in the rest of the article, I welcome your additions, I will also prey for your well being. That is my best to you. My Current version, which is not finished (29,169 bytes), is cleaner. I clearly stated in this message. Look! I am approaching towards you because, you claim, you have extensive knowledge about this issue. And you also claim, I have missed things in my lead section. I want to know, what did I miss and what is not appropriate for a lead. Beyond constant objection and personal remarks, you hardly prove any substance regarding in this issue. I have already explained type of conflict, sides, location, stages (conflicts at towns, urban conflict, relief), roles of the parties and how did they engaged with each other, the resolution, and importance of the article. You in this message claim that you do not agree with me and you will constantly engage to an edit war (reverse any editions) regarding towards the lead section. Let me be more specific. You can not involve edit wars and also not involve to a "consensus building process" at the same time. If you engage in a constant rev act without being in a consensus building process, you are performing a "vandalism". I'm trying to understand your objections, as you are a fellow Armenian who is sincerely interested in Armenian history, but not a fanatic who does not value the Truth. Dear friend, which of these concepts I summarized here should not be included in this lead section. I believe these are minimum set of concepts that should be in the lead. --Seemsclose (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is divine comedy! Is this the same character who removed all references he did not like, the ones containing some grain of truth? Now he is complaining about removal references without a concenus? We should syndicate these very scientific and objective discussions!

It was a REBELLION.

The history, you know, not the alternate reality created by partisans, but the rest of the World records these events as an Armenian Rebellion. It was not even the first one in this greeat old city, and it was not even the only city where Armenian rebellions and terrorist acts took place in the previous two decades in an effort to facilitate a Russian invasion.--Murat (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user Murat, I belive you put or took (depending on your position) the words from my mouth. Thanks to Meow, it turned into a divine comedy. However, find "five different" historians, from three different nationalities (not just Turks), who claim it was a rebellion, no one will deny your position. I will defend your position. Meow rejects a sound WP:LEAD and you can not brought forward citations of your position. Let me say in Turkish "Sozle Peynir Gemisi Yurumez, Canim!" (If my Turkish spelling or grammar has problems, forgive me!). --Seemsclose (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two belong together. Meowy 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Meowy, it seems we need a Wikipedia:Third opinion. You do not like my WP:Lead. I can not get an objective response from you. I 'm happy to change the lead according to your advice, but you have failed to tell me what you think and present your sources, regarding the parts of the LEAD sections; "What type of conflict, sides, location, stages (conflicts at towns, urban conflict, relief efforts), roles of the parties, how did they engaged with each other, the resolution and finally importance of the article." We will ask a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Present our versions and our reasons, than ask Wikipedia:Third opinion to make a choice. A PERSONAL note: Do not be angry. Do not say "You two belong together." That is hardly the truth. Murat does not read or even own his publications (just try to move his "cheese ship" with unsound claims). We are different. I read my sources. I defend using knowledge. I do not "huff and puff". Also, We use expert knowledge. Murat does not understand that its is not the definition (this is not wikiword), but if the resistance was classified as a rebellion by experts from a historical perspective (that is the point where cite comes into play). He looks to his personal mirror and "huffs and puffs." It is the conclusions of the experts around the world makes a difference. He used the Divine Comedy. I remind him (the Grey Wolves) the wolf in Three Little Pigs. Murat says "then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your self-defense." But my house is build on Bricks. Seemsclose (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are seeking to take possession of the whole article and replace it with one of your choice. All Murat has done is attempt to insert a few clearly POV statements that can easily be countered and removed. Your proposed lead section is at least twice as long as it should be, and is rambling, confusing, and not well-written. Your incorporation of Russia in the conflict infobox goes against the historical reality. You seem to want to turn this article into an account of the entire WW1-period conflict in the Van region. One good point is that your alternative has reduced the references to the history of Van, Hamidean massacres and so on, to an appropriate size, with links to the main articles. However, you will not ever get a consensus to entirely remove the current article and replace it with your own one. In order to progress things I suggest that you give an assurance here that you will not make such an attempt at completely replacing the article, and then we can ask for the article to be unprotected, and then discuss each change one by one in this talk page. Meowy 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. point; If you carefully look at the conflict box, you will see the three sections (not two), which is specifically designed to represent "three way" conflicts. You are assuming, "two way conflict" such as Battle of Baku where there are two sides in the conflict box but the many different forces, such as Ottoman, Azerbaijani, Dagestani forces. We know there is a Russian relief (Russian Armed forces), and it was a relief to "Van resistance." I can clearly support this with couple citations. The current article also includes this fact. Three are three armed forces. But you are wtong to assume they are cooperated. Excluding Russian forces in the infobox is a bias. Remember during relief, JULY battles, civilian forces fought ottoman forces to slow down, which saved many Armenian life.

2. point; You are defending an article ("you will not ever get a consensus") which is poorly written, not well cited, most importantly you also claimed that so. Just WP:verifiability, will be its death certificate. I'm totally happy to go over one by one, sentence by sentence to brought this article into a decent quality. At the end there will be no single unreference source in the article. Also, I'm not WP:OWN the article. You are welcomed to show me, tell me a better source, better explanation. I will listen your and at the end we will have something we can be proud of. I'm not backing of fixing this article. Seemsclose (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. point; This is not a war. Do not use conflict words such as "countered, removed." You can not object "Van rebellion", (along with "Van revolt"), if he brings them with a well formed WP:CITE reference. He has failed to do so. The question here is WP:Verifiability not what Murat thinks. Seemsclose (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. point; for the lead, I it seems we are going to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Just to be clear, correct your position.

Well, yr Turkish is light yrs ahead of my Armenian! I have read about this topic for a very long time and I have never come accross the use of this "resistance" description of the rebellion at Van until I stumbled on it here. Certainly the Turkish history recorded it as rebellion and that has some more weight than let's say a partisan Armenian re-writing history 100 yrs later from CA. It is not that difficult to find sources that have properly labled this event as rebellion not to mention a whole book with that title but I have a feeling unless the reference is a pro-Armenian source it will not be found "satisfactory" by the mob guarding these alternate-history pages. The other issue is more basic. Opinions may be subject to census and voting, but basic facts can not be re-interpereted with a vote. White is white and black is black no matter how many nuts say otherwise for example. I gave a standard description of what a rebellion is from a dictionary above, which not surprisingly describe exactly what happened in Van. I can certainly understand the motivation, but that does not change the facts.--Murat (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also start by googling "Armenian Rebellion(s)" and see for yourself how far your self-deception has taken you.--Murat (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objection to something like "Van rebellion", (along with "Van revolt") being amongst the alternative names at the start of the article, or for those names being redirected to the "Van Resistance" article. That is the name given to the event in some works of Turkish propaganda,and in some other works, so it should be there amongst the alternative names. Given its POV nature, it shouldn't be the main title. Meowy 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all this sad story, one only hears of Armenians and their fights and how they were killed. Considering about half of Van's population at the time (maybe more including the environs)was Muslim Turk or Kurdish, does anyone have any information in these highly partial sources about what happened to them during these months of fighting and occupation? Did they just sit on a nearby hill and watch the back and forth beteen Ottoman and Russian armies and Armenian rebels? What do Armenian sources tell us about this? Inquiring minds want to know.--Murat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they mostly sat around after expending much energy killing, raping, and plundering in the surrounding Armenian villages. Meowy 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Someone requested a third opinion on this page. I've removed the request for a number of reasons, the first of which is that there are more than two editors active on this page, and 3Os are generally reserved for pages with only two editors. If you want to get more consensus going, try WP:RFC. You may also want to try getting some support from the people over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia. I can try giving an opinion on the page if you want, but I don't know that I'm sufficient informed to do so. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:HelloAnnyong. With your action, you removed a "conflict resolution path". What grounds you perform such an act? I support all my positions using Armenian sources. This is about WP:Verifiability. This is really not about, my position against MEOW's position. This is about MEOW's personal taste (short-long lead???). He does not brought his own sources to support his position. He even denied Armenian sources regarding the issue. This is beaming ridicules as we begin to change history to based on personal taste (long-short, two box-three box...). --Seemsclose (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to take ownership of this article and replace it with something entirely of your own creation. That sort of thing is questionable at the best of times, but it is especially so in this case because I see little evidence that you are capable of doing it properly. You simply don't know how to write an encyclopaedic article. Why don't you just create a personal webpage on the subject? Meowy 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, you are welcome to add your own citations. Teach me, Correct me, if you like. Also you can edit over, what I have been working on. You failed to do so. I never overlook what you brought forward, you told me to remove the flag, you told me to give less detail, I did. Besides, the version, which is named as "my version" includes nearly all the information, that I can verify from its source, which the citations in this version is very limited. --Seemsclose (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Seemsclose, I was a little vague there. I didn't remove the listing; I'm taking on this third opinion, so I've removed it from the 3O list. However, I'd advise both of you to stop sniping at each other. You're both attacking each other, which is a violation of WP:NPA. And I seriously doubt you're doing anything in good faith with so much hostility around here. Perhaps some time away from this article to clear your heads would be beneficial? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:HelloAnnyong. There are many issues in this version of the article. But it is possible to approach it one by one. The WP:LEAD and the "info box" are the ones, which I have substantially involved. These two issues have already extensive discussions. Both of these issues have "two solid proposals". The third issue was brought by User:Hudavendigar (or Murat), which I did not rejected his position (though others did), but requested him to provide "well formed citation" to be included in the article. In his last edit MEOW accepted his position and dropped his request for a citation. I hope you will bring your, separate, opinion over each one. I want to point out that you said "I'm taking on this third opinion" but your opinion is not one but seems three at the moment. It also seems it will go on through out the rest of the article. --Seemsclose (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so literal. Give me some time to read all the backlog and look at the page edits, and then I'll post something here. In the meantime, I'd recommend that you both take some time off from editing this page. You can keep sniping at each other all you want, but the page is locked anyway, so it's just gonna be endless argument. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I totally dropped the ball on keeping track of this page. Several personal issues came up, so I've not had a chance to look into this. I don't think I'm going to have a chance in the next few days, so perhaps it might be better if you guys try to track someone else down. There's a big number of people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia/Participants; you may also want to look into WP:EA or something like that. I'll keep an eye on this page, but I don't know how helpful I'll be. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, You totally dropping? You made me believe that you are a mediator who has no side ("non-sided", a third person) and would look at the positions presented and references given. That was what your message read. Why you advice us to drop the whole "third person" position in this issue? I'm so disappointed. I 'm working hard to improve Wikipedia. --Seemsclose (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack me like this. Wikipedia is not my entire life, you know; there are things outside of this. We're all working to improve Wikipedia; don't make me feel like a bad guy because I don't have all the time in the world to devote to reading this extensive backlog. I'd watch my tone if I were you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all voluntary work. It is not difficult to see your side. You do not have time. You can drop or ask more time. You prefer to drop it. What is disappointing is not your decision, but solving the problem with users who WP:OWN and do not negotiate on the WP:Verifiability. You do not need to take it personally, it is not directed at you, but to whole system. This point is clearly stated at the link, which was your advice to apply. I also do remember clearly thanking for your efforts. I'm sincere in my efforts, also my disappointment. Thank you. one more time. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that part of my objection is that Seemsclose's proposals make the entry unencyclopaedic (by, for example, having a confusing and extremely overly-long lead section) it might be better to also have a completely unconnected person look at it - someone who doesn't know the subject at all but who knows what a good wikipedia article should aspire to. Or is something like this possible - unprotect the article, let Seemsclose have his way, then let me hack down his lead section by 50% or more, and then get a third party to comment on which would be the better version. His Russophile desire to place a Russian flag in the conflict infobox could be addressed by having informed editors who know the proper purpose of conflict infoboxes tell him it isn't going to happen. Meowy 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Seemsclose, it is you who are exhibiting the ownership tendencies - you want to replace the entire article with one entirely of your own creation. Meowy 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Meowy, my edits are based on WP:Verifiability.
(1)Ownership does not apply as (a) Previous editor's efforts are not discarded. All the "credible sources" in this poor version also included in my version. (b) This page is blocked, I work on my version. I never denied you to cooperate on my edits. (c) I never rejected Murat's proposal. I asked him to bring his sources, which is clearly defined in WP:CITE. When he does it, I will defend his edit. (d) You can check the article history, I never reverted your edits. I ask you to bring with WP:CITE. (e) I have never threaten you that I will be reverting your edits constantly.
(2) I asked for a WP:Third Person. I did not engaged with you personally. I brought Armenian sources that clearly prove "Ottoman Army" involved in a single day, at the same location with (a) fighting against Armenian civilians. (b) fighting against the "Russian Relief." Also Russian Relief was dispatched because of Armenian civilian request on April 28. Ottomans fought both side even during evacuation. Your proposal includes Armenian civilian forces and Russian forces in the same box. If you are right, then Talat Pasha was right in his claim that Armenians of the region were cooperating with the Russians. That is against Armenian position. Armenian position does not deny the Russian relief. Armenian genocide say that Ottoman Armenian Civilians of Van did not fight along the Russians. You are making a big big mistake. If we accept your position, beginning with the Russian military movements in the "Vilayet of Van," Armenian civilians would be in position of working (coordinating) along the Russian forces. All my positions are presented with sources including to their page numbers. Please read them.

I'm disappointed at you, because you have been personal with me; (a) claimed that I'm: "you actually are a propagandist". (b) claimed that I'm a lair "your flag-waving lies" (c) insulted my efforts: "your much inferior version." (d) you claimed that I'm: "grasp of English high enough for you to attempt such things." ALSO (a) there is no single reference you have brought forward. (b) When I asked which concept or fact you are objecting? You constantly failed to give an explanation which can be used to fix the problem. Your response "This is material not suitable for insertion into the lead section" does not include basic information regarding "WHAT, WHY, HOW."

I'm constantly trying to reach out to you. You are constantly threatening to revert my sources. You are openly declaring an edit war. I do not know how to deal with such a behavior of yours. I would like to see you drop this edit war threat. For the WP:LEAD section I'm willing to accept your version (How short it may be) if it includes "A) Type B) Sides C) Location D) Stages (conflicts at towns, urban conflict, relief) E) Roles of the parties and how did they engaged with each other. (E) The resolution (F) Importance (G) How history interpreted the results" and also citations for each item. Thank you for your cooperation. Seemsclose (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are working on a page that you intend to use to entirely replace the current one. How much is derived from the current version only you know exactly, but it seems very little is left of the current article. Your lead section is at least twice as long as it should be. There is no place for a Russian flag or mention of Russian forces in the conflict infobox - the article is not about the wider battles that took place in the Lake Van area. I think that your alternative article, because of the way it is written, fails in its purpose which should be to give an intelligent but uninformed person a clear, accessible, and readable account of the event. More information doesn't mean better if most of that information is ignored by readers because it is badly presented. For the lead section, I'll work on a 50% shorter version and post it here in a day or so to compare the two. Meowy 02:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not totally true to say "is derived from the current version only you know exactly." It is not hard to read two articles and have the sense what is missing. If you have not done it, your objections on my edits are questionable. I would appreciate if you do write your own WP:LEAD. I would be glad to pass through your version and point out major points;

1. It should establish context, (reliable, published sources)
2. summarize the most important points,
3. explain why the subject is interesting or notable,
4. briefly describe its notable controversies,
5. not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.
   — as stated in WP:LEAD

. We will compare your and my version based on a rating scale "A) Type of resistance B) Sides of resistance C) Location of resistance D) Stages of resistance E) Roles and engagement (F) Resolution (G) Importance (H) How history interpreted the results" Seemsclose (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I'll just let it go - let Seemsclose screw it up. "Armenian sources" - what a laugh! No wonder 90-odd years after one of the best documented genocides ever, thanks to bad presentation we still get to call it "alleged" if we want. Yes. let him screw it up, or let some other editor save it. I withdraw. I've got better things to do - off to pet a few Van cats. Meowy 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)

Meowwwy,

What do you like better his use of fine racist turkish propoganda sources like: Çelik, Hüseyin (2001). "The 1915 Armenian", The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 374.

or his middle school grammar and mechanics - personally I like both. If you survey this moron to checkuser he will turn up to be the banned user artaxiad from Boston area, who also gloated over Nazi Armenian connection 812 battalion article like the worst anti armenian could not have. smaller chance he is user ottomanreference.Artaxiadisaloser (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]