Biography: Military B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Ottoman C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Ottoman military history task force

Armenia B‑class

Talaat Pasha 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.

Turkey Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

Where are you getting your information from? the turkish government

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't patronize me, you @#@. You know very well I don't have any trouble understanding english. How do you know my native language isn't English? What do you know about me that you came to that conclusion. English might not be my native language but I believe I speak it better than many native speakers do. Why do you play it dirty and try to portray me as a dimwitted foreigner who has trouble understanding English. Don't get nasty because I didn't agree with you. Everybody has a right to their own opinion. What part do you not understand about my claim that this is a biography of a Turkish minister and the whole Armenian genocide accusation/discussion theme shouldn't even be that prominent here. This is not the Nuremberg Trials. You can give some information about his role in the alleged Armenian genocide but you should also accept it if others give their view about it. You have no right to force your own view on others. Like I already said the Armenian genocide is far from proven and the fact that some European and American countries recognize it doesn't make it an universally accepted fact. Just as much, no, much more countries don't recognize the Armenian genocide. Many wikipedia users have tried to give their opinion here but this hardcore pro-armenian group has chased them all off eventually. That doesn't mean you are right, it just means that people are irritated and annoyed by you. I don't understand why non-turkish people feel the need to come to turkey related articles and start editing and deleting parts to discredit turks. I don't want to go to the Armenian genocide article or the Memoirs of Naim Bey article to discuss the genocide. I wouldn't even discuss it here if every turkish article didn't end up with additions about armenian genocide, human rights, minorities and other criticisms. Even positive things such as the fairly good relations between Turkey and Israel have to be smeared by adding the few exceptions where the relations weren't perfect.[1] Ibrahim4048 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I was very angry at the time so even tough I was right in my accusations I expressed them in the wrong way by directing my accusations directly against him. I had already changed the text as you can see here [3] but off course Kansas Bear has nothing to gain from that text so he uses the old one. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can somebody help me out with the Mehmed Talat article. Somebody made this biography about a Turkish minister and made it part of the wikiproject Armenia and gave very biased information about him with the sole purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide accusation. Somebody put a neutrality tag on it but they removed it despite objections. After more objections from various users some changes were made but they didn't put the neutrality tag back and it is still controlled by a very pro Armenian group who keep reverting any changes they don't like. For example I wrote "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide since it is only recognized by 21 countries out of the 194 countries in the world, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the United Kingdom all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof for genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that the Armenian genocide is disputed and not an established fact. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister and not the Armenian genocide article. They also wrote that Mehmed Talat is quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" ^[1] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey. In that article there is a section in which several European and Turkish historians dispute the authenticity of these papers so I changed it into Mehmet Talat is allegedly quoted as ordering to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" ^[2] recorded in the "Andonian Telegrams" which is disputed for it's authenticity.^[3]. They reverted these changes without discussion on the talk page so I changed it back and this went on a couple of time until one of them "Kansas Bear" reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I am new and didn't know about the 3RR rule. And Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself as you will see if you look at the history. I pointed that out to the administrators but they didn't do anything and didn't even read my objections but strictly followed 3RR rules without looking who was right. You can see that on my talk page. They were not so strict towards Kansas Bear despite him breaking the 3RR rules too. But other than that they reverted my changes again, and NOW they want to discuss it AFTER I got blocked. I have given my reasons again why I made these changes but am afraid to change them back. Can somebody who is experienced come and look at this article and read the talk page and help me out? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kansas Bear reverted my changes again without discussing it on the talk page I changed it back. I think I have given enough good reasons for my changes and I don't understand what the big deal is about my giving a reference to what is actually said in the article. My putting "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide is also not out of order because this is not an article about proving the Armenian genocide but about a biographhy of a Turkish minister. The persons who made this article didn't even put it in WikiProject Turkey but only put it in WikiProject Armenia instead. Someone else had to come along and correct this. I admit that the Armenian genocide is relevant for this biography of Mehmed Talat and I don't object to it being mentioned but the way this article was put together is biased and was only created to support the Armenian genocide accusation. As long as people don't discuss things and just delete my contributions, I will put them back again. I have asked for help on my talk page, asked for mediation. I hope somebody will look into this soon. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 2 March 2009 The Myotis (Talk | contribs) (18,469 bytes) ('alleged' gives WP:UNDUE to minority POV, contradicting main AG article.) (undo)

First of all only 21 of 194 countries in the world recognized the armenian genocide during 90 years of armenian lobbying , that makes your view the minority POV and would even give me according to your rules the right to delete the accusations altogether. If I understand this WP:UNDUE thing it is about minority versus majority on the subject of the article itself. My view that there is no conclusive proof of the armenian genocide which is shared by lots of respectable historians and saying that this article shouldn't be about genocide accusations is not the same thing as claiming the idiotic notion that the earth is flat on earth article itself. This is not the Armenian Genocide article first of all and what the majority of the users in the talk page there have somehow bullied others into accepting doesn't make it the majority view in the world and it doesn't apply here. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy for you guys to win. First The Myotis will revert then I will revert back, then Kansas Bear and I will revert back again, and then The Myotis again and if I revert again I break the 3RR rule and get blocked. Very nice.Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to be mediating the dispute from here on out. This can be a fairly sensitive issue, so let's all try to focus on Wikipedian policy. I hope we can come to a compromise quickly and easily. From what I can tell, Ibrahim is looking to preserve neutrality with regard to WP:BIO, though Myotis makes a respectable point about undue weight. The genocide itself is not hotly disputed, but the quotation, apparently, is not necessarily reliable. I would propose the following compromise:

which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey" as saying, "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything," though the authenticity of the papers has been disputed.

I hope that this can satisfy both parties. What this form does is to acknowledge the genocide's authenticity, which is not disputed, and to say clearly that he was supposed to have said something, but it is disputed as to whether he did or did not. Does any party object to this? Or, perhaps someone has another idea for a compromise. Tealwisp (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to that. Also, thank you for your attention. The Myotis (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You can ask me directly if you ever need a third opinion. Is this compromise acceptable for Kansas and Ibrahim? Tealwisp (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me, KB. I have no objections. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then, we just need Ibrahim's opinion. Tealwisp (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the part "and is allegedly quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" ^[4] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey", though their authenticity has been disputed ^[5]." which has not been changed in the last reverts but the word "alleged" in front of "large scale genocide". The problem is that I am challenging the genocide's authenticity. The fact that the autheniticity of the memoirs of naim bey is challenged has already been accepted by everyone since no one reverted that part in the last reverts, eventually they even accepted my reference ^[6] since it would be absurd to accept the part "though their authenticity has been disputed" without allowing me to make a reference to where it is disputed. Your proposition is not a compromise but is a paraphrasing of exactly what kansas bear and the myotis wanted and even deletes the reference I made. Off Course they wouldn't have objections to that. There is no compromise possible since the discussion is basically about the word "alleged" in front of large scale genocide and that depends on accepting the armenian genocide or denying it or (like me) objecting to the acceptance of the genocide as a fact because there is no absolute proof for either acceptation or denial.

I mean come on, there are so many respected scholars who question the genocide as an attempt to exterminate the armenians. Why then the idea that it is universally accepted? There is a big difference between germany who accepts the genocide themselves and for which there is no doubt they tried to exterminate the jews and turkey who denies it and there is proof the ottoman government had no intention of exterminating all armenians since no proof is found of such a ideology and there were large armenian populations in Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo who were not deported. Some of those armenians even fought in the ottoman army and their communities were not touched. Has Hitler left for example the jewish population of berlin alone because they were loyal citizens? Was germany threatened in any way by the jews? Turks were not nazi's and armenians were not as innocent as the jews. The armenian separatist groups of the east were the reason why the ottomans decided to deport the armenians. These separatist groups posed a threat to the ottomans because they had contacts with the russian army (with 150.000 armenian soldiers) and had attacked the ottoman empire from within. The ottomans had the choice between deporting them or letting them stay and face destruction/genocide of themselves. What would you have chosen? Maybe it would have been better if the ottoman empire was completely destroyed and turks would have been exterminated/subjugated by the europeans, russians and armenians? I mean that was the goal of the attack of the europeans and russians on the weakened ottoman empire was it not? To conquer the ottoman empire and divide it between them. The ottoman empire tried to stay neutral when that was not possible and the germans threatened to either join them or be attacked they tried to join the allies but russia didn't accept (they wanted ottoman lands) so they had to join germany for any chance of survival. The difficult decision of deportation of the armenians and the resistance of the ottomans saved them and is the only reason turkey exists today. Without it I would probably not exist since my ancestors would have been killed or I would live as a minority in armenia/russia. I also don't understand why turkey and turks alone are targeted for this blame. Everybody knows the ottoman empire consisted of many peoples and the attacks on armenians were not committed by ottoman troops but mostly by local kurdish (and arab) militia's. [4]. Why then blame only the turks and turkey? The turks don't deny the deportation and the deaths caused by the deportation but they do deny responsibility on the attacks on armenian villages or on the armenians while they were being deported. The ottoman empire was very weak in that part of the empire and should have punished these militia's who attacked the armenians but couldn't afford to make new enemies who could possibly join the russians. This is not the same thing as what the germans did to the jews and it shouldn't be considered a genocide unless actual proof is brought forward that the ottoman government did order attacks on armenian civilians. For now every ottoman document speaks about armenian rebels and not about civilians, they give good reasons for their decision for deportation. You might agree or not agree with the reasons for deportation but it is clear nobody speaks in a racist/denigrating way about armenians the way the nazi's did.

If you deny discussion of the armenian genocide but accept it as a fact and even make laws against denying it you are being a fascist. Why blame turkey for having laws against propagating the armenian genocide while for example france has exactly the opposite law which punishes denying the armenian genocide. Isn't it the same thing? You are denying people to have an opinion on something which is debatable because there is no hard proof. As long as there is no proof for the ottoman government ordering to kill armenian civilians the discussion should stay open. Without disrespect, Tealwisp, but it seems to me you are not very impartial by just accepting the armenian genocide as "the truth". What authority do you have by the way to mediate? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

here is another killer from the million tuks killers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serouj, will you please cease the mindless reverting? On the Operation Nemesis talk page [[5]] you say you believe the claim that British intelligence services collaborated in assassinating Young Turk leaders to be false. Yet you have just reinserted, without giving any explanation, that same false claim into this article. By posting in this section of the talk page you must have read my explanation at the top of it for removing the claim, yet you conciously chose to ignore it, and also to ignore your own words written on that other talk page. Why? Please modify your behaviour. Meowy 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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