Talk:Defense of Van (1915)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Van → Defense of Van (1915) – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV. See below Երևանցի ^talk 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1896 Defense of Van → Defense of Van (1896)

"Siege of Van" is not an appropriate title. It is not the most common name as claimed in the 2011 discussion. Google Books reveals only 284 results for "Siege of Van" as opposed to "Defense of Van", which shows almost twice as much results (549). Interestingly enough, the phrases "Defense" "Van" 1915 armenian show 2,500 results. For those who will be quick to call "Defense of Van" Armenian POV I suggest you look at all the authors who prefer calling it a "defense"/"self-defense":

Steven L. Jacobs "On 20 April 1915, the Armenians of Van rose up in self-defense, an action depicted by the Turks as a revolutionary uprising." 2009
Christopher J. Walker "Their five-week battle with the Turks was not a rebellion, but legitimate self-defence, a reaction to the terrorism of the government's representative, Djevdet, which he had directed against the entire Armenian community." 1990
Merrill D. Peterson "The gallant Armenian defense of Van has already been touched upon." 2004
Randall Hansen/Matthew J. Gibney "A few days later,Turkish soldiers attacked some Armenian villages around Van, massacring Armenians. In the town ofVan,the Armenians dug trenches around the Armenian quarter and began a desperate defense of their community." 2005

--Երևանցի ^talk 02:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - The article was renamed Siege from Resistance based off common name to begin with. --Steverci (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. First, the GBooks results are not really as you present them: the "Siege" search actually has 39 hits, while "Defense" has 34. So they're about equally in circulation.
Second, "siege" is simply more logical and slightly less POV: to defend something, logically someone has to attack it first, right? So, the "siege" encodes both the attack and the defense side. I said, "slightly less POV" because, quote from a book, " What the Armenians would later call “the defense of Van”..." the term "defense" leans on an Armenian side (which is not necessarily a bad thing per WP:POVTITLE, but here we have viable alternatives). "Siege" is simply more neutral.
Third, under the proposal, "defense" would require a disambiguation, while "siege", at least currently, comes as a more natural disambiguation (WP:NCDAB). No such user (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not forget that "defense" is spelled "defence" in British English. So, therefore, we have 34 "Defense of Van" and 32 "Defence of Van". That is a total of 66, almost as twice as "Siege of Van"

"Siege" is simply more neutral. How? It was a deliberate attempt to massacre the Armenian population. I've clearly given very authoritative sources above that call it an act of defense/self-defense. The Siege article defines it as: "a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault." There was no such thing happening in Van. The Ottoman government's intent was to massacre the Armenian civilian population.

Liberation of Paris leans on French side, so? That doesn't make it French POV, because it is accepted by the majoroty of sources as a "liberation", the same way the events in Van are considered a "defence" by Armenians. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Per commonname. Siege of Van doesn't accurately describe what happened in Van in April of 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I had initially closed this as moved, but I think there are still more questions to be answered. Foremost, what will happen to "Siege of Van"? Will it continue to redirect to Defense of Van (1915)? Where does Siege of Van (1548) come into play? Will we still need a dab? --BDD (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest redirecting "Siege of Van" to Siege of Van (1548) and adding this note at the top of that article:

--Երևանցի ^talk 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, we'd want to move Siege of Van (1548) to Siege of Van. Foo (dab) shouldn't redirect to Foo. And maybe it will be best to keep the dab, then, if there are a total of three events that could be called "Siege of Van." I'll make the moves accordingly tomorrow if there are no objections. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blatant inaccuracy in timing of deportation and siege

As I was reading this article, I couldn't help but notice the last sentence of the first paragraph "However, the decisions of deportation and extermination were made before the Van resistance." The sentence is linked to a reference by a book by Taner Akcam. Looking at the dates of this siege, it is stated on this page as 19 April – 17 May 1915. Finally, looking at the article on the Armenian_casualties_of_deportations, we can note that the law was put in effect and passed on May 27, 1915. Can somebody explain how the deportation decisions were made before the Van "resistance?" Graffitici (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it telling that no one has reacted to you remarks. But kind of unexpected that no one has taken the time to delete the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Taner Akcam stated that "the decisions of deportation and extermination were made before the Van resistance". --92slim (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to give us summary of the source. I would like to learn how Taner Akcam reached this conclusion. Is this his personal opinion or any fact behind it? We know the Red Sunday in April and some kind of Law in March. Does he provide any source/sources published by another researcher? Some historians claim he used wrong dates, wrong translations, and unrelated events to support his claims. --Balkai9 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not an historian or researcher. Perhaps check Akcam's book. As for the uprising/rebellion/siege, Gibbons said in 1926: "This uprising had not been intended or planned" (by the Armenians) - found here. According to De Waal in his book The Great Catastrophe: "Minister of Interior Talaat Pasha had issued the first orders of deportation in February 1915". Perhaps that clarifies this issue that Akcam doesn't have any "claims". --92slim (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anahit Ter Minassian (on p211 in the chapter titled "Van 1915" in the book "Armenian Van / Vaspurakan") describes it thus: "The Van uprising began on April 7/20 1915. On April 11/24 1915 the Ottoman authorities arrested and deported several hundred lay and clerical leaders and intellectuals. This was the onset of the massive deportations and massacres of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. Is it reasonable to believe that an operation of such great magnitude, involving the displacement of over one million people, could be improvised in 4 days because of an uprisising in a small Anatolian city?" The two dates given are firstly the Julian calendar, the second the Gregorian calendar. Her comment is a response to the claim found in "all the works of Turkish historians" who "deny the genocide" that the Ottoman decision to deport its Armenian population was due to the treasonable actions of those Armenians rather than a deliberate and planned act of genocide by the Ottoman empire. It's a rather casual response because no credible historians seriously suggest there is any truth within that Turkish propaganda and that there is plenty of evidence for that elsewhere, not just the Van events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It of course makes very little sense that the Armenian Revolt at Van would be a spontaneous event, "forced on Armenians by circumstance". When Russia entered the war much earlier, it was clear to many Armenians that Russia would win this one again as they had done so against Ottomans many times before and with each defeat, new Russian client states were born on lands massively ethnic cleansed of its Muslim inhabitants. It is impossible for Armenian Revolutionaries not to be thinking along these lines or be cognizant of these realities. Now, Mr. Akcam knows all this very well, so that is why some have been always skeptical of his agenda. As early as 1908, Consul Elliot who met Armenian notables in Van noted that "even among the educated they have the idea that in their struggle with the Turks, they are entitled to rights analogous to those of a belligerent power. They told us that Fedayin, who are the Armenian Army, are engaged in war with Ottoman Army..." What part of Rebellion at Van could be a spontaneous rising? The massive amount of weapons and even artillery stockpiled leaves no doubt that this was a result of a long planning effort. Are we to believe that the Rebellion taking place at the height of the Allied landings in Canakkale is pure coincidence too? I propose to amend the language in accordance with known historic facts.

In response to the quote of Anahit Ter Minassian, she was arguing if it's possible for the Ottoman Empire to prepare the exile of Armenians in four days, not the Van uprising. The Van uprising is indeed unrelated to the plans of the Genocide; it was a plan to undermine the efforts of the ARF (who were already armed, as paramilitary organization usually are), organised by the governor of Van. Don't twist the words, Tiptoe. --92slim (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I give an exact quote from a source, 92slim gives a sourceless and probably OR opinion and calls the exact quote a "twisting of words"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you twist words. Didn't you know? 92slim (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defense of Van (1915). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615035151/http://www.armenia-survival.50megs.com:80/ to http://armenia-survival.50megs.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times article

The NY Times article is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that talks about "rumours" of revolt. However, no such revolt occurred in November 1914. This is simply not true, and even denialist sources make no mention of it. We need to have some sort of secondary source to verify whether this "rumour" from a prime source is true. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, non-events are not events, non-things are not things, if otherwise we would have on the Moon article newspaper reports of WW2 aircraft on its surface. There are no sources that show this single newspaper "report" was based on anything that was real. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So, you are saying that this article is biased against the Armenians? Is that what you get away from reading this piece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What I get from reading that piece is that American journalism in 1914 was no better than American journalism in 2003, or in 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think any further source needed to include the nyt coverage. Saying "it did not happen" without any source denying it, is just a POV. You guys also want remove this [1] from the Armenian Genocide article? Abbatai 11:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. There's hundreds, if not thousands of sources that confirm what is mentioned in that NY Times article. In fact, there's dozens upon dozens of secondary academic sources that use that particular NY Times article as a primary reference to the Armenian Genocide at large ([2]). On the other hand, there's nothing on a November 1914 revolt that would confirm the "rumour" in this NY Times article of yours. Until then, it shall be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Here [3] [4] just two sources mention 1914 revolt. BTW I believe article is heavily biased from name to not exclusion of 1914 revolt. Abbatai 12:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see anything about a revolt in these sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Shaw is an Armenian Genocide denier. You've debunked your own argument. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop demagogy guys the content of the NYT article and this Wikipedia article overlaps and the file should be added to article. Also the picture in the lead says "Armenian civilians"... how is this possible? Those people with arms probably Dashnak members considered civilians? Not at all. I will change Armenian civilians to Armenian volunteers at Belligerents. If you are not happy with that I propose to create another article about "1914-15 Armenian Revolt in Van". Since there are numerous sources. See Thanks.--Abbatai 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative titles

I propose just having The Defense of Van also known as the Siege of Van in the first sentence of the lede. Maybe detail the others at the end of the lede, but I think better to have them in the article body since they are pov and not necessarily accurately describing what happened. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I agree. I think "Van Rebellion or Van Revolt to the Turks (Turkish: Van İsyanı/İhtilâli))" should be removed from the lead. Those are denialist talking points that have little basis to reality. It'll be like adding "also known as the so-called Armenian Genocide to the Turks" or something in the lead of the Armenian Genocide article. However, for the sake of keeping intact the historical significance of the phrase "Van İsyanı/İhtilâli", it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Indeed, calling it a rebellion is entirely bogus, but there is a certain significance to the term since it was used by the Turkish government over and over again to justify pillage and massacre. But we should also keep in mind that the context that we provide around that term should also be neutral. For example, "the Turks called it a rebellion, even though numerous contemporaneous accounts suggest otherwise" or something. 07:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

When a population or group arms itself to fight against the state (for whatever reason, legit or moral or illegitimate according to your personal view) which legitimately includes the said locale in its borders, it is called rebellion or uprising in common English. I never understood this use of "defense" here. English called American patriots who rose against the British rule "rebels" for example. ISID monsters in Syria were not "defending" themselves, but mounting an armed insurgency. Do I need to go on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 22:52, September 17, 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Defense of Van (1915). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402170208/http://www.artonthebanks.com/2015/03/lost-in-time-armenian-heritage-genocide/ to http://www.artonthebanks.com/2015/03/lost-in-time-armenian-heritage-genocide/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rebellion is Rebellion

I am very puzzled by the title of this article and the lede. When a population or a group arms itself to fight against the state (for whatever reason, moral or legitimate or illegitimate according to your personal view) which legitimately includes the said locale in its internationally recognized borders, it is called rebellion or uprising in common English. I never understood this use of "defense" here. English called American patriots who rose against the British rule "rebels" for example. ISID monsters in Syria were not "defending" themselves, but mounting an armed insurgency. From dictionaries: "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another", "opposition to one in authority or dominance", "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government". If these do not define the Van Rebellion, than what does? If there are other preferred names for one reason or another, please explain the article, but let us call an apple, apple first. Murat (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed before and the article has been worded in that respect. There was no "rebellion", only a self-defense measure to protect the local Armenian population from impending deportation, massacre, and genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It may have been discussed, but that does not make it right. Regardless, "rebellion" has a very specific meaning, per any dictionary. Regardless of any "intent", motivation or thought. Armed resistance against a state. Seems very simple, not sure why there is an argument. I did not even touch the title, just the intro. Besides, the arming of Armenians of Van had started years before. ARF was active for over a decade there. There does not fit into this "imminent" description. I am still hoping you will consider your whole sale revert again and add something substantial to the argument here. Murat (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You've been trying to rewrite ~~history~~ this article for quite several years now but the consensus has always been against you. To sneakily edit the article in order to align it with your own POV is quite frankly disruptive. You've been warned about AA2 sanctions by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) all the way back in 2011, I hope you realize the AA2 is still around. As for your argument, there was no rebellion. Rebelling has a distinct character as in rebelling against the status quo or a government in this case. The Armenians did not "rebel" but tried solving the issue through peaceful methods that was only met with violence and a large-scale genocidal campaign against them. The Armenians defended themselves in that regard. And this is not just my opinion. In fact, there's an entire section filled with quotations by neutral contemporaneous eye-witnesses who saw the events unfold before their eyes. Since it seems like you missed it, I'll just republish them all here:

The consulates of the United States, Germany, and Austria-Hungary, as well as a number of Ottoman officials, recorded and documented reasons for the Van uprising:

I have told this story of the "Revolution" in Van not only because it marked the first stage in this organized attempt to wipe out a whole nation, but because these events are always brought forward by the Turks as a justification of their subsequent crimes. As I shall relate, Enver, Talaat, and the rest, when I appealed to them in behalf of the Armenians, invariably instanced the "revolutionists" of Van as a sample of Armenian treachery. The famous "Revolution", as this recital shows, was merely the determination of the Armenians to save their women's honour and their own lives, after the Turks, by massacring thousands of their neighbours, had shown them the fate that awaited them.
— Henry Morgenthau, Sr., Ambassador Morgenthau's Story

On 15 April 1915, the German ambassador in Constantinople, reported:

Armenians have given up their ideas of a revolution since the introduction of the Constitution and that there is no organization for such a revolt.^[1]
— Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim

The Divisional General and Vice Marshal and Austrian Military Attaché and Military Plenipotentiary to the Ottoman Empire said:

The Van uprising certainly was an act of desperation. The local Armenians realized that general massacres against the Armenians had already started and they would be the next target. In the course of the summer 1915 the Turkish government with inexorable consequence brought its bloody task of extermination of an entire nation to an end.^[2]
— Joseph Pomiankowski

The governor-general of the Ottoman Empire in Erzurum, Tahsin Bey wrote that:

{{Quote | There was not and could not have been an uprising in Van. Through our constant pressure [of the local population] we have created a mess from which we can no longer escape, and we have put the army in a difficult position in the East.^[3]

Elizabeth Barrows Ussher, Christian missionary and wife of Clarence Ussher wrote:

Although the Vali calls it a rebellion, it is really an effort to protect the lives and the homes of the Armenians.^[4]
— Elizabeth Barrows Ussher

Grace Knapp, Christian missionary:

The fact cannot be too strongly emphasized that there was no “rebellion.” As already pointed out, the revolutionists meant to keep the peace if it lay in their power to do so. But for some time past a line of Turkish entrenchments had been secretly drawn round the Armenian quarter of the Gardens. The Revolutionists, determined to sell their lives as dearly as possible, prepared a defensive line, of entrenchments.^[5]
— Grace Knapp

An official of the Turkish Government stated:

I have followed the matter from its source. I have enquired from inhabitants and officials of Van, who were in Diarbekir, whether any Moslem had been killed by Armenians in the town of Van, or in the districts of the Vilayet. They answered in the negative, saying that the Government had ordered the population to quit the town before the arrival of the Russians and before anyone was killed; but that the Armenians had been summoned to give up their arms and had not done so, dreading an attack by the Kurds, and dreading the Government also; the Government had further demanded that the principal Notables and leading men should be given up to them as hostages, but the Armenians had not complied.

All this took place during the approach of the Russians towards the city of Van. As to the adjacent districts, the authorities collected the Armenians and drove them into the interior, where they were all slaughtered, no Government official or private man, Turk or Kurd, having been killed.^[6]

Ibrahim Avras, a Van deputy in the Ottoman parliament, was in the city at the time, and reported that the CUP was secretly provoking people to attack Armenians.^[3]

These accounts are by neutral observers (i.e. Americans), Allies of the Turks (i.e. Germans), and indeed from the Turks themselves (i.e. Mayors, Valis, and etc.). So if you really want to write the lead, it needs to reflect the body of the article, which is not what you're doing by passing it off as some sort of rebellion when all accounts point to the fact that the Armenians merely defended themselves from a government hell-bent on annihilating them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a lot of words and all seem to prove that Armenian citizens of Van took up arms against their state, no matter how noble their cause. All of the above seem to confirm it including the neutral observers. I did not appreciate the accusations and slender either. I made my case here clearly. I was not the one who undid wholesale without any discussion. The definition in the dictionaries still apply: "organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another", "opposition to one in authority or dominance", "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government". I am yet to hear why the above definitions do not apply. Murat (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are actual statements and observations for Armenians themselves and allies:

"The best opportune time [for the revolutionaries] to institute general rebellion for carrying out the immediate objective was when Turkey was engaged in a war" --- Louis Nalbandian "Armenian Revolutionary Movement"

"I might mention that the Armenian revolutionaries in Van and Salmas have been informed by their Committee in Tiflis that in the event of war they will side with Russians against Turkey. Unaided by Russians they can mobilize about 3,500 armed sharpshooters to harass the Turks about the frontier and their lines of communication" --- Consul Dickinson, 1908, to O'Connor.F/O 195/2283

What do these sound like? In fact, right here from these pages, you can see that ARF was actively arming and forcibly recruiting fedayeen years before 1915. One can of course present more evidence but point is made. Maybe you are not as well informed as you think. Still not clear why there is an even argument about these simple and documented facts. Murat (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the above seem to confirm it including the neutral observers. - Are we reading the same quotations? The neutral observers, German Allies, and Turks were quite clear. This was not an act of rebellion for the sake of rebelling against the state, but a desperate act of self-defense against a government that was hell-bent on annihilating them. Calling it a "rebellion" would be misleading for Wikipedia's readership because it can unjustifiably place blame on the local Armenian population. Any average reader would think the Armenians "rebelled" at their own initiative and that it was not a result of a counteractive measure against a government that was actively trying to annihilate them. This is why, I assume, it appears you're adamant to change the wording to suit some type of POV. And it's no coincidence that this very same POV stems from the propaganda efforts of the Turkish government since Day 1 of the Armenian Genocide. And that's not an exaggeration: [5]. You're also pointing to a dictionary to solve your problems which is borderline WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And the sources you brought up have nothing to do with the Defense of Van. Nalbandian merely quotes the Hnchakian party platform (an organization that was almost non-existent in Van by 1915) and Dickinson's telegram from 1908. Both documents were before the Young Turk Revolution when Armenians laid down their arms once and for all [6] and more importantly, seven years before the actual Defense of Van. That telegram, might I add, is only found in denialist publications. Which begs the question: have you been looking there? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you do agree that there was a rebellion. Maybe not a rebellion for reballion's sake? Is that the problem? Of course definitions matter, or you would not be engaged in this polemic. Dictionary definition is clear and unambiguous. Dictionary does not "solve my problem", since I do not have a problem and a dictionary is the most basic reference for any meaning of any word. You sound like an editor who is highly partial and emotional on this topic, defending a particular slant or view point regardless of facts, blessing some references as good, others invalid. I detect a bias in your statements. I am not an expert but this seems to contradict a number of policies on these pages. Issue is not what motivated or what moral and legitimate reasons Armenians of Van had to arm themselves against their own state, but the fact is they did. We know they did because that is what the whole article is about. I still fail to see why this simple fact is such a cause for concern and discussion. Murat (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Self-defense is much more accurate of a description pertaining to what happened in Van. Rebellion can mean one of many things. But I am repeating myself here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Gust & Gust 2005, p. 57.
^ Charney 1994, p. 116.
^ ^a ^b Akçam 2006, p. 201.
^ Barrows, John Otis (1916). In the Land of Ararat: A Sketch of the Life of Mrs. Elizabeth Freeman Barrows Ussher, Missionary to Turkey and a Martyr of the Great War. Fleming H. Revell. p. 128.
^ Bryce, Viscount (2008). The treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire documents presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon ; laid before the Houses of Parliament as an official paper and now published by permission (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1916. ed.). Frankfurt, M.: Textor-Verl. p. 16. ISBN 3938402156.
^ El-Ghusein, Fâ'iz (1917). Martyred Armenia . C. Arthur Pearson, Ltd. pp. 47–8.

No matter which term is correct, several terms must be used to be neutral. If this event is called rebellion by a party, we must see this in subtitle. Unfortunately, anti-Turkish and Islamophobic sentiment have been rising in Vikipedia. The very worse thing is that this racism will breed its reaction. I hope that vikipedia will be ready to recognize its contribution in discrimination and apologize for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.133.16 (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has stopped being a reliable and respectable source when it comes to these topics. The above spectacle is ample proof. Plain subversion of a common dictionary term used everywhere else properly, except on these pages. An ethnic minority picks up arms, while the country is in a state of war, against their own state and government. Anywhere else in the world this is a rebellion. No one is really fooled I would think. I will continue efforts to make room to actual facts here. Murat (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Defense of Van

There is a reason the article is called Defense of Van. Some new accounts with their racist rants and WP:OR POV should take the following into consideration and read for a second.