This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aram Andonian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I just created this article and hope that we can expand more on Andonian's role concerning the telegrams. This article is partial and I hope we can also include some of Andonian's personal life. Cheers -- MarshallBagramyan 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just dropped by while doing some general wiki cleanup. You have a link to Armenian, which is a disambiguation page, and should not be linked to directly. I'm not sure if you are referring to his ethnicity or his nationality. If the former, you should use [[Armenians|Armenian]]; if the latter, [[Armenia|Armenian]]. (If either is correct, I would probably choose the former.) Thanks. -- Xtifr 11:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Among others, Turkish professors have asserted that Andonian's telegrams are in fact forged..." Not only Turkish professors have asserted this. Look what Guenter Lewy has to say about the documents: >>Turkish authors are not alone in their assessment that the Naim-Andonian documents are fakes. Dutch historian Erik Zürcher, writing in 1997, argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries." British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime minister of the interior, Talât Pasha." It is ironic that lobbyists and policymakers seek to base a determination of genocide upon documents most historians and scholars dismiss at worst as forgeries and at best as unverifiable and problematic.<< For further reading: http://www.meforum.org/article/748#_ftnref40 .
And: >>For example, the alleged thirty-one telegrams of Talât Pasha contained in the Naim-Andonian volume, some of which order the killing of all Armenians, are rejected as crude forgeries not only by Turkish historians but also by almost all Western students of Ottoman history. Hilmar Kaiser, cited by Dadrian and the one exception to this rule, did say documents from the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior "confirm to some degree" two telegrams, but he concluded that "further research on the ‘Naim-Andonian' documents is necessary."<< http://www.meforum.org/article/895
"Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian has argued that the points brought forth by Turkish historians are misleading and has countered the discrepancies they have raised."
Dadrian used the same 'counter' that was attempted on this page in the paragraph relating to the German court - he claimed that they had been authenticated during the court case. As the transcript of the case shows, they were never entered into evidence and never authenticated.
So his counter was at best, the result of poor research and at worst a bare faced lie.
Again, the paragraph implies that only Turkish historians dismiss the authenticity of the telegrams. Dadrian and Balakian have in fact been criticised for using these documents in their work by multiple Western historians.
"These telegrams were also used in the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talat Pasha in Berlin, Germany on March 14, 1921. The introduction of these documents in court help acquit Tehlirian; albeit on grounds of temporary insanity due to the traumatic experience he had gone through during the Genocide."
As described under the Authenticity discussion, these documents were never introduced as evidence. The motion was withdrawn. Whilst I will leave the issue of authenticity, which is an issue of a biased representation of the debate, for discussion, I am removing the above statement immediately as it can be empirically demonstrated as false by the court records published in 1921.
This article evidently proclaims a large bias on it's author's part. It cites works of authors known for botched scholarship (Dadrian and Balakian), proclaims the indisputable authenticity of documents believed by many credible historians to be forgeries, and the author has not even acknowledged this when it was pointed out in the above discussion. The fact that he or she deliberately overlooks these statements is a blazing signal of his or her prevalent agenda or personal bias.
I reverted a change, in which somebody put in that Talaat Pasha was the alleged mastermind of the Armenian Genocide, this is an established, incontrevertible historical fact that cannot be disputed or argued against so I removed the word "alleged" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.223.63 ( talk) 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seemsclose's deleting the chapter about the memoirs of Naim Bey is well done. We need to rewrite here a proper biographic article about Aram Andonian. We can refer shortly to The Memoirs of Naim Bey [in the original Armenian edition: Մեծ Ոճիրը; The Great Crime]. Otherwise it will become disproportionate. And I suggest that the WikiProject Turkey banner is moved to he Memoirs of Naim Bey. I cannot imagine (up to now) that Turks might be interested in Aram Andonian's life and accomplishments except the Memoirs. Apocolocynthosis ( talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Did Aram Andonian really work for the Young Turks ? Is it possible to give a source for this information ?
-- Moumine70 ( talk) 10:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aram Andonian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I just created this article and hope that we can expand more on Andonian's role concerning the telegrams. This article is partial and I hope we can also include some of Andonian's personal life. Cheers -- MarshallBagramyan 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just dropped by while doing some general wiki cleanup. You have a link to Armenian, which is a disambiguation page, and should not be linked to directly. I'm not sure if you are referring to his ethnicity or his nationality. If the former, you should use [[Armenians|Armenian]]; if the latter, [[Armenia|Armenian]]. (If either is correct, I would probably choose the former.) Thanks. -- Xtifr 11:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Among others, Turkish professors have asserted that Andonian's telegrams are in fact forged..." Not only Turkish professors have asserted this. Look what Guenter Lewy has to say about the documents: >>Turkish authors are not alone in their assessment that the Naim-Andonian documents are fakes. Dutch historian Erik Zürcher, writing in 1997, argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries." British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime minister of the interior, Talât Pasha." It is ironic that lobbyists and policymakers seek to base a determination of genocide upon documents most historians and scholars dismiss at worst as forgeries and at best as unverifiable and problematic.<< For further reading: http://www.meforum.org/article/748#_ftnref40 .
And: >>For example, the alleged thirty-one telegrams of Talât Pasha contained in the Naim-Andonian volume, some of which order the killing of all Armenians, are rejected as crude forgeries not only by Turkish historians but also by almost all Western students of Ottoman history. Hilmar Kaiser, cited by Dadrian and the one exception to this rule, did say documents from the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior "confirm to some degree" two telegrams, but he concluded that "further research on the ‘Naim-Andonian' documents is necessary."<< http://www.meforum.org/article/895
"Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian has argued that the points brought forth by Turkish historians are misleading and has countered the discrepancies they have raised."
Dadrian used the same 'counter' that was attempted on this page in the paragraph relating to the German court - he claimed that they had been authenticated during the court case. As the transcript of the case shows, they were never entered into evidence and never authenticated.
So his counter was at best, the result of poor research and at worst a bare faced lie.
Again, the paragraph implies that only Turkish historians dismiss the authenticity of the telegrams. Dadrian and Balakian have in fact been criticised for using these documents in their work by multiple Western historians.
"These telegrams were also used in the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talat Pasha in Berlin, Germany on March 14, 1921. The introduction of these documents in court help acquit Tehlirian; albeit on grounds of temporary insanity due to the traumatic experience he had gone through during the Genocide."
As described under the Authenticity discussion, these documents were never introduced as evidence. The motion was withdrawn. Whilst I will leave the issue of authenticity, which is an issue of a biased representation of the debate, for discussion, I am removing the above statement immediately as it can be empirically demonstrated as false by the court records published in 1921.
This article evidently proclaims a large bias on it's author's part. It cites works of authors known for botched scholarship (Dadrian and Balakian), proclaims the indisputable authenticity of documents believed by many credible historians to be forgeries, and the author has not even acknowledged this when it was pointed out in the above discussion. The fact that he or she deliberately overlooks these statements is a blazing signal of his or her prevalent agenda or personal bias.
I reverted a change, in which somebody put in that Talaat Pasha was the alleged mastermind of the Armenian Genocide, this is an established, incontrevertible historical fact that cannot be disputed or argued against so I removed the word "alleged" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.223.63 ( talk) 07:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seemsclose's deleting the chapter about the memoirs of Naim Bey is well done. We need to rewrite here a proper biographic article about Aram Andonian. We can refer shortly to The Memoirs of Naim Bey [in the original Armenian edition: Մեծ Ոճիրը; The Great Crime]. Otherwise it will become disproportionate. And I suggest that the WikiProject Turkey banner is moved to he Memoirs of Naim Bey. I cannot imagine (up to now) that Turks might be interested in Aram Andonian's life and accomplishments except the Memoirs. Apocolocynthosis ( talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Did Aram Andonian really work for the Young Turks ? Is it possible to give a source for this information ?
-- Moumine70 ( talk) 10:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)