![]() | This page 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. |
I will put back the photographs of three notable Hamshenis of Turkish politics in the info-box, as it goes for most info-boxes. I see that there has been source problems. I will shift the photograph of the woman to some other place in the article. Also, please do not erase talk page stuff, and I am not sure that the purpose of a wikipedia article's talk page is to direct readers to yahoo discussion groups. I had put a mention of this article in the page for the town of Hemşin, the world may not look the same way from there. Cretanforever.
"Recently, most of the Muslim Hamshenis in Russia who were forcibly moved by Stalin to Kazakhstan, wish to have their own cultural organization in the Krasnodar Krai in Russia. The action was continously denied by Krasnodar officials and has prompted an organization of their co-ethnics and co-religionists in Armenia itself to appeal to the Russian ambassador in Yerevan to get Moscow to intervene in this case and overrule the regional officials who seem intent on preventing Hamshenis from gaining official registration." Does this mean that there are Muslim Hamshenis "in Armenia itself"? Citation needed. Behemoth 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it came from one of his informants from an Eastern Hemşinli group. Our Northern Hamshentsis (Christian), as far as I know, do not use that particular word. Most of the time we call our language simply "hayeren = Armenian". However, the way we prononce that word is different from what it would sound from a regular Armenian speaker. We use the sound "ä" a great deal in our speach, so it would sound like "häyren". Often you hear "mir lizu = our language", and even rarely "h'mshen(tsu) lizu". avetik
What was the source of information about "Sevan" cultural center's active support for Hamshen conference?.. According to the editor of Yerkramas newspaper, "Sevan" leadership actually boycotted that event, and it was organized and sponsored by "Dashnaktsutyun":
Просто в статье мне резанула слух одна строчка о том, что сочинский "Севан" выступил спонсором конференции. Это ложь. "Севан" в лице своего руководства конференцию саботировал. А что касается организации и финансирования конференции, то это сделала партия Дашнакцутюн.
Avetik 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, but there is nothing about "Sevan", that was the objection. Avetik 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. You can write Yerkramas publisher and editor Mr. Tigran Tavadyan ( info at yerkramas dot org ) to confirm this information. After reading Wikipedia article, he personally emailed me on this topic asking to please correct the information... Avetik 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
By putting the WPTR tag, i was not disputing that they were armenians, I know that. but I put the WPTR tag since it is a turkey related topic, feel free to add WP Russia and WP Georgia tags as well..:)) Kars is also in WP Armenia, we have to be inclusionist.. :) Baristarim 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I really hate to be a prick by asking this, but it would be really nice if somebody put some sources that attest to Hamsheni origins of Mesut Yılmaz and Murat Karayalçın.. I put a fact tag a month ago, and while I understand that this is not a very busy article and therefore provokes much less interest, it would be nice if somebody actually tried to dig up some sources on this. The thing is I have no idea if they are Hamshenis or not, they could be or they could not be.. Frankly, I don't care either way. But remember that these are living people, and as such fall under the same rules governing living person Bios, which state that claims about living people have to be substantiated thoroughly.. I will let the fact tags stay for a long while again, till someone comes up with some info on this.. cheers Baristarim 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish we had access to the source there, Erhan G. Ersoy's book, see this. I e-mailed them, they might send me the article. deniz T C 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
According to an Armenian researcher there are 100000 Hamshen in Turkey and not 400000. Here is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3459 It makes no sense to exagerate the number of Hamshen in Turkey. Orrin_73
There was a link in hyeforum, I assume you did not read it. Orrin_73
someone had posted a link in the forum to a study! It is not that someone in the forum said! The claim that there are 400000 hemshin in Turkey is absurd. Orrin_73
400,000 is supposedly the total number of Hamshenians, more than 100,000 being from a Russian city. deniz T C 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article misses an objective treatment of the topic of Hemşin and its history.
It touches to the facts that the majority of people of Hemşin identify themselves as ethnic Turks and they speak Turkish only (except for Hopa-Hemşin people). I believe that the authors would also agree with the fact that the people of Hemşin proper and (except for language) Hopa-Hemşin culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor, within some local and natural diversification.
However, the article poses a very biased approach by presenting these people unquestionably to be of another origin (race?) and culture, against their own perceptions. This biased and in my view misplaced attempt is supposedly justified based on incomplete studies of the culture, language and history by some researchers of a certain school of thought.
The one sided presentation of the subject throughout the article is against the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This makes it very difficult to revise the article on a sentence-word basis and requires a major revision. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, I first want to discuss possible changes to the article in this talk page with the contributors of the article to reach a consensus, and then proceed to edit the article to come up with a Wikipedia policy compliant presentation.
Here below some basic statements:
1) Even though there has been a limited number of old texts (partially conflicting) regarding the Hemşin area, the modern day historians and linguists have only recently focused on the Hemşin region in terms of its civilization history and linguistic background.
2) To date, there has not been any conclusive consensus on the ethnical(?), cultural and linguistic roots of the "Hemşinli" leading to different schools of opinion.
3) In this article the term Hemşinli does not only refer to the present day people of Hemşin proper and Hopa-Hemşin but also to various peoples who once in history had connection to the Hemşin area. Naturally, there are differences to varying degrees in cultural, folkloric, religious and linguistic traits of these people. Consequently, the article shoud avoid giving the impression that any information or inference related to a specific group of "Hemşinli" is also necessarily valid for all other groups of the "Hemşinli" as well.
Before proceeding any further with the detailed discussion and editing, I want to first make sure that we all have a consensus with the above points. Such a consensus would enable us to have a healthy and productive discussion on the article. Omer182 12:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the discussion above, I propose to start editing the article with the first paragraph, as clarified below. I suggest that the first paragraph focus only on the literal meaning of the term which forms the title of the article, and postpone the presentation of details to the relevant sections.
The proposed form for the first paragraph is as follows:
"The term "Hamsheni" has recently been used (in non-turkish sources) to refer to a number of diverse groups of people who, in the past history or present, have in one way or another been affiliated with the Hemşin area. In historical documents this term is absent. Depending on the pronunciation and language used other designations like Hemshinlis or Khemshils; Armenian : Համշենի ; Russian : Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi ( სუმეხი ) [2] ) are used as well. The turkish equivalent of the word is "Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er). This is the designation used by people who still live in Hemşin or have ongoing affiliation thereto through family ties." Omer182 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose to resume editing the article with the "Origins" section. I propose to discuss the history in this section and consequently rename the section as "History". I suggest that the issues of culture (religion, language and changes therein) be addressed in the subsequent section ("Groups").
My proposal for the "History" section is as follows:
"The foundation of Hemşin is often related to a migration which is claimed to have taken place in the 7th to 9th centuries from Armenia to the Hemşin region. Short passages from the medieval Armenian chronics Ghewond, Asoghik and John Mamikonian form the primary references for the migration, in spite of the fact that there are fundamental contradictions between them with regard to the time and accompanying circumstances of the migration. Neither of the chronics associate the Hemşin area clearly with the migration. The common element is the mention of a Prince Hamam who was either a leader of the migration or a descendant of the migrants.
Regardless of the ambiguities surrounding this migration, it is generally accepted that the migrants confessed to the Christian faith and belonged to the Armenian Church. There ara no specific indications with regard to the language and/or other ethnical characteristics of the migrants. Some Turkish historians deduce that those were Turks; while many other historians deduce that those were Armenians.
Even if the migrants have really settled down in Hemşin, whether and by whom Hemşin was populated prior to that migration and what has happened to them is not clear. There are views which suggest that the area was uninhabited due to its difficult terrain whereas opposing approaches argue that the area was already influenced by earlier movements of people which possibly include ancient anatolian people as well as caucasian and turkic tribes.
Furthermore there are contradicting views with regard to whether Hemşin remained isolated and inaccessible or whether it was open to further migrations after in the beginning of the second millennium. This is also due to the fact that there are no historical documents clearly proving either thesis.In spite of the lack of clear documentation it is deduced that Hemşin has been governed by local Lords under the umbrella of the greater regional powers changing by the time namely the Bagratid Armenian kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, its successor the Empire of Trebizond, the Georgian Kingdom , the Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu Turkmen Confederations until it was annexed in the 15 the century by the Ottoman Empire which collapsed as a result of the WW1 and gave birth to the Republic of Turkey." Omer182 ( talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My proposal for the "Groups" section is as follows:
"The Ottoman era has witnessed two major developments in the Hemsin region: Islamization and population movements. Islam faith has commenced to spread possibly prior to the Ottoman rule but it has become the general religion not before the end of the 16 th century. A number of population movements (both into and out of the region) are also known to have happened during the Ottoman era. Detailed information regarding the nature of these movements is missing. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that:
The present community of Hemşinli thus surfacing is exclusively of Islam faith and Turkish speaking. This goes for the people living in Hemşin or people still maintaining links to the area although they live all over in Turkey.
A distinct community settled about 50 Kms east of Hemşin in villages around Hopa and Borçka call themselves also “Hemşinli” and they are often referred to as the “Hopa Hemşinli”. Professor of Linguistics Bert Vaux at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee refers to this group as the “Eastern Hamshenis”. Hemşinli and Hopa Hemşinli are separated not only by geography but also by language and some features of culture and are almost oblivious to one anothers existence. It is assumed that this community has its roots in a migration from Hemşin or have been settled in this area by the Ottoman authorities. The estimations for the timeframe of this settlement varies from early 16th to late 17 th century. There are controversial opinions also on whether this migration took place in one step or whether two waves of migration took place. The Hopa Hemşinli are exclusively of Islam faith as well. Whether they have immigrated from Hemşin proper as moslems or whether they have converted to Islam in their new homeland is another question with controversial answers.
The Hopa Hemşinli speak in addition to Turkish a language called “Hemşince” or (“Homşetsi” and/or Homshetsma in some sources). Recent studies claim that this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble.
In addition to these groups there are people speking Hemşince / Homshetsma in the countries of the former USSR whose ancestors have probably originated from Hemşin and/or Hopa Hemşin in course of the various population movements to the Caucasus.
Those among them who confess to the Islam have been deported from the Adjara area of Georgia at the Stalin era to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A considerable number of these deportees have moved to Krasnodar Krai since 1989, along with the Meskhetians.
Most of those of Christian faith currently live in Abkhazia and in the Krasnodar Krai region of Russia, in particular, the Sochi area, and Adygeya." Omer182 ( talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Answering the unsigned entry dated 13 May 2008 under the title discussion:
The edits I have inflicted have been through a wikipedia policy compliant procedure, in which I have first discussed the edit proposals (one by one). Refer to the first entries just below the title "Major revision proposed" to see "where it all started". Your allegations regarding the removal of pictures and references are simply incorrect. No reference or picture has been removed by me. If you have objections to my statements, you should specifically tell me which statement you think is unfounded (BTW I have stated this numerous times on this page already). I will undo your revert. Omer182 ( talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the recent edits I now see that the unnamed user has reverted all edits I have done since Oct 9, 2007, which had commenced following my declaration and reasoning for a major revision on 11 august 2007. Al-Andalus and Macukali have then added back an image and a reference that were already removed prior to my edits (by other contributors). Basically they have collectively undone several months of edits by various contributors (in 2 days and with no discussion). I have no specific objections to the image or the reference that has been added back, but these minor edits should be isolated and should not be wholesale, and they should be discussed and mentioned. I have reverted the article back to its version on 11 May 2008. If any body wants to add references or images, please do so, as long as you discuss them here. Omer182 ( talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry on 19 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the mentioned entry has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional response. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article. Omer182 ( talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 21 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
I believe your approach would have been different if you actually read all the discussions on this page starting my first proposal for a revision (Aug. 11, 2007). I encourage you to read the discussion! My edits are not my opinions but are founded by literature. I again invite you to identify the specific statements in my edits that you think are not founded, or that you think are my opinions. This is the only way to have a meaningful discussion. If such a discussion would require to revise my entries, I would ofcourse do that... However, it is unacceptable to revert 9 months of edits and discussion just by presenting a biased view and trying hard to avoid any in depth discussion. Hence, I now revert the article to its earlier version, and kindly ask you to stop this kind of intervention which now tends to become vandalism.
PS. Regarding the picture, as I had told you earlier, I am not the one who removed it. Check the page history if you need to verify. In any case, I will reinsert it, as I don't have a particular objection to its inclusion. However bear in mind that the pic. was probably removed for some reason and if I were you I would check to see what it was. Omer182 ( talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 26 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
no revert without discussion!... Furthermore not even any specific objections or questions or argumentation...I undo revert.. Omer182 ( talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it "Hamshenis" rather than, for example "the Hemshin" or "Hemshinli"? Meowy 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hemshin is the original area of settlement for the Hemshinli, and from that area all of the other related communites originated. For that reason Hemshin should be at the core of the content of this article. Nobody in Hemshin would nowadays call themselves "Hamshenis" - they would use "Hemshinli", so I think it would be more apropriate to title the article "Hemshinli", or, alternatively, "The Hemshin". Meowy 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting omer because his edits consist of vandalism, removal of images and citations without consensus as well as original research in regard to the identity of the Hamshentsis. To answer both meowy and omer the armenian speaking christian hamshenis do refer to themselves as hamshentsi just like aremnians from lets say yerevan refer to themselves as yerevantsi and omer reinserts original research and misinformation as well as vandalizes images and other content. if he continues this, he will be reported. 70.21.161.85 ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing but a bling revert and some other commments which have not answered above discussion and simply reverted in a vanalous manner
AND YES YOUR EDITS ROMVING IMAGES ARE CONSIDERED VANDALISM !
. Ans yes, Hamshentis, those that left to avoid genocide still retain their distinct identity as black sea armenians, so it is important and especiall o mention proper spelling hamsentsis rather than omers "turkification." one more revert and he will be reported to ANI 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Coming back to the discussion on the title issue:
It seems difficult to relate all people related to Hemşin to a single ethnical group. In fact even the concept of ethnicity seems to be problematic for many. It is worth noting that the definition of etnicity as described in Wikipedia ( Ethnic group) begins with a quote from Max Weber, "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether"
Another interesting quote from Ben Fowkes (Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World) is as follows:
"In his seminal work, Ethnic Origins of Nations, published in 1986, Smith listed six necessary ethnic attributes. These can be summarized as: a collective name; a common myth of descent; a shared history; a distinctive shared culture, comprising language and/or religion and/or institutions and/or other cultural features; an association with a specific territory; and finally a sense of ethnic solidarity, in other words a recognition of each other as members of the same ethnic group. Smith's view in 1986 was that all these features had to be present to establish the existence of ethnicity (Smith, 1986: 15). Later on he abandoned this insistence, arguing instead that: ‘the more [of these attributes] they have the more they approximate to the ideal type of an ethnie’ (Smith, 1991: 21). But the individual's own subjective consciousness of belonging to an ethnic community, in other words the sense of ethnic solidarity referred to above, is the most important feature of all"
Obviously this article is not about the concept of ethnicity itself. However, it is a fact that present people of/from Hemşin-proper, Hopa- Hemşin and those in Caucasions who identify themselves as Hemşinli/Hamsheni do not share the attributes listed above. Therefore it is not possible to consider them to be of the same ethnicity.
Hakob: I agree that "Hemshin people" would be a better title for this article. However, my reservation is that this term is not established in the relevant literature. Omer182 ( talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Omer,
Unfortunately wiki is not a place for you to publish your opinions and your interpretations of Hamshenis as a group of Armenian people. You continue to remove content and not justify it, including the picture. I have no choice but to report you. 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
i did and there is no consensus - defining an ethnic group is not goal of wikipedia and words hamshenis has been used is your original research, the bert vaux paper is definitive topic on paper and I reported you once. do not make me do it again 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From my talk:
please protect hamshenis page, omer keeps adding original research, no citations and refuses to explain his mass edits, where there is not consensus. 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you, guys, think I should protect the article to help you solve the problem on the talk page? I do not see much edit warring now. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, loook athis edits, vandalism and original research interpretations. he removes dozens of cited ideas sentences for his blabber, anti-armenianism and so on 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to adress the concerns regarding my edits mentioned above:
My approach to editing has been completely in complience with the wikipedia policies. Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007. Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on this page. My reason for proposing revision was my opinion that the entry did not stand NPOV as it was. After waiting for app. 20 days, with no response from the contributors, I put a reminder that I was waiting for a response on 2 September 2007. Eventually, with no confrontation and actually some vague agreement on my proposal, I put a dispute tag (9 October 2007). Then, I started the procedure for section by section editing which comprised of first posting the proposal for the edits regarding the relevant section and waiting for discussion for a reasonable amount of time. My first proposal was posted on 28 October 2007 in the discussion page. All my edits have been implemented following the procedure outlined above. So far, I have edited the introduction paragraph of the article, and two sections. My last edit was dated 13 April 2007.
Regarding the responses to my edits, I should say that I did not get any discussion! Starting with 17 January 2007, some users (partially with only IP addresses) have engaged in wholesale reverts, one after the other. The last in chain is the user IP:67.49.46.213 who is the reason for this discussion. There were two aspects common to the approaches of all these users:
Actually I kindly invited them (numerous times) to specifically tell me which statements in my edits they believed were unsourced or were incorrect. Unfourtunately, I did not get any responses so far.
User IP:67.49.46.213 keeps insistantly making wholesale reverts with no discussions. His/her responses to my invitations for discussion were not understandable, and many times emotional and angry. Just as an example, last part of his/her remark on the summary of his/her most recent revert reads "..no one agrees with your vandalsim, shoo leave bad turkce!". The language is not understandable and does not say anything solid regarding the entry. Several other examples can be observed if one goes through the history of the article as well as the discussions above.
I am not sure if it is still important to touch the "removed picture" issue, after what I have written above, but for the record, I want to say that I have not removed any pictures. I had removed a template by mistake, and realizing this I put it back, after I was warned (see my entry on 11 May 2008 on this page under groups section). The picture that user IP:67.49.46.213 mentiones is the "A Hamsheni woman in traditional dress" picture which was removed by another user before my edits. I have tried telling this to user IP:67.49.46.213 numerous times, but due to communication problems I could never get my message across.
Finally, with regard to allegations related to original research/unsourced edit/ removal of sourced contributions, I want to quote here again my input on 23 April 2007 on this page: "...In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source 'The Kingdom of Armenia: A History' by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it. If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify".
A quick glance at the discussion page under the heading "major revision proposed" will verify all my responses above. Omer182 ( talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is my final try with omer. here he can place and discuss all edits he wamnts to add or remove, one by one, instead of vandilizing page. his edits should be backed by citations and there should be consensus. if he does not work and simply reverts, admins should ban or protect. i have been trying for weeks without a response from this vandal. 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is yet another case of nationalism denying the blatantly obvious. This article should be re-edited to remove Omer's 'contributions' that are based solely on the fear that the idea of a separate Armenian-rooted Hamsheni identity might somehow infringe on Turkey's mono-cultural Turkic identity. A large proportion of Turkey's population is of Armenian descent anyway; get over it. -- 158.143.55.45 ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't Hemshin people be a better title for this article? Hakob ( talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you all might find this interesting. I occasionally read English and Armenian language posts on the Hamshen Forum and was surprised to discover that there is now a Hamshen newspaper in Yerevan ( Dzayn Hamshenakan or Voice of Hamshen). The monthly newspaper, in Armenian and Russian, is distributed for free both in Armenia and on the internet. I was browsing through one of their 2007 issues, and there was lots of interesting stuff, such as an article with pictures on an Armenian/Hamshen church that will soon be constructed in Gagra, an overview of a book on Hemshinli by Hovan Simonian, and information on the Hemshinli in Turkey. I could only read four pages though, as I do not read Russian. Hakob ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, your requirement for citation for the first sentence of the lead section seems to me awkward ...You know that there is nohing to challenge there..This fact is explained and studied in all publications including of course a number of them in the reference list of the entry (Vaux, Beninghaus, Simonian)... Therefore a requirement for citiation is in essence superflous ..Moreover our mutual discussion about the name of this very article is also due to this fact... I cannot see your requirement as an attempt to create a better article.
However I have included some specific citiations to optically clear the article from unneccesary tags and or to avoid getting engaged in an edit war irrespective of whether they are required.
Your tag regarding the use of Hemshinli /Hamsheni (in the lead section) served a purpose!...By reexamination I have found that "Hamsheni" is not used in the referenced publications... It is perhaps used in website forum pages and the like....So I removed the related sentence....
I have removed also the sentence tackling the term Hemshin as identification of the people.I believe this info could be valuable (it is true , that an important publication introduces this term seriously in addition to the classical Hemshinli in English: it may become important and widespread in the future) however it is not worthwhile to try to prove it to you. Omer182 ( talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, the inline citations are needed only for those statements which are challenged Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regarding the fact tags you placed in the groups section, do you challenge the factuality of the statements there? I have already asked this before. Please write down what you challenge for the record. Omer182 ( talk) 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
After the removal of those two sentences in the current lead section there is little difference in the content between the version you removed a week ago and the curent version beyond the fact that the current version does not follow the standard wikipedia form and many of its sentences are not particularly concise. So I have taken most of the earlier version, abbreviated it a bit, and incorporated the bits of the current version that it did not contain. I've added "Homshentsi" as a third alternative name since it is used in the cited Bert Vaux source. I've also added a fact tag for the Muslim Hemshinli in Georgia claim - though I think it is true, it does need a source (and since I didn't write it I don't know the source). If any other parts of it are thought to need a reference, then add fact tags and I will add the references. Meowy 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is being changed through edits without prior agreement on talk page since some time. Although my preference is to reach an agreement on talk page first (for the lead section and all others) I have no other choice but to follow that line as well.
Just now I have made such an edit.
For the sake of clarity I recall the recent developments as follows:
June 9: the then standing lead section, which was mainly worded by myself, was edited with the declared purpose of (An attempt to get a neutral lead).
June 12: I inquired what was "unneutral" in the removed paragraph and put forward what in my view was not correct in the new edit.
From there on I was confronted with no arguments but insults.
Several direct edits took place...In this course I have tried to carry as much as I can from texts entered by the counterparty.
My edit dated June 21 included also all the requested inline citations and references.
Also this one was, however, fundamentally changed (June 22) and whole sections I had proposed were removed with no clear explanations, using artificial and untrue excuses (like "this version is very similar to my earlier version"...) or vague complaints (concerning "wikipedia standard format"). This change reinserted also the POV statements about which I had explained my concerns on June 12 and did not address or even consider my comments raised by then.
In response, I have again updated the lead section (June 25), taking the relevant parts from the recent edit and removing the POV statements. Unfourtunately, this was followed by an immediate revert.
As a renewed attempt to achieve agreement, I have now updated the most recent version, keeping the referenced material, adding fully referenced information and have tried to achieve a wikipedia policies complient form. Omer182 ( talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I will put back the photographs of three notable Hamshenis of Turkish politics in the info-box, as it goes for most info-boxes. I see that there has been source problems. I will shift the photograph of the woman to some other place in the article. Also, please do not erase talk page stuff, and I am not sure that the purpose of a wikipedia article's talk page is to direct readers to yahoo discussion groups. I had put a mention of this article in the page for the town of Hemşin, the world may not look the same way from there. Cretanforever.
"Recently, most of the Muslim Hamshenis in Russia who were forcibly moved by Stalin to Kazakhstan, wish to have their own cultural organization in the Krasnodar Krai in Russia. The action was continously denied by Krasnodar officials and has prompted an organization of their co-ethnics and co-religionists in Armenia itself to appeal to the Russian ambassador in Yerevan to get Moscow to intervene in this case and overrule the regional officials who seem intent on preventing Hamshenis from gaining official registration." Does this mean that there are Muslim Hamshenis "in Armenia itself"? Citation needed. Behemoth 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it came from one of his informants from an Eastern Hemşinli group. Our Northern Hamshentsis (Christian), as far as I know, do not use that particular word. Most of the time we call our language simply "hayeren = Armenian". However, the way we prononce that word is different from what it would sound from a regular Armenian speaker. We use the sound "ä" a great deal in our speach, so it would sound like "häyren". Often you hear "mir lizu = our language", and even rarely "h'mshen(tsu) lizu". avetik
What was the source of information about "Sevan" cultural center's active support for Hamshen conference?.. According to the editor of Yerkramas newspaper, "Sevan" leadership actually boycotted that event, and it was organized and sponsored by "Dashnaktsutyun":
Просто в статье мне резанула слух одна строчка о том, что сочинский "Севан" выступил спонсором конференции. Это ложь. "Севан" в лице своего руководства конференцию саботировал. А что касается организации и финансирования конференции, то это сделала партия Дашнакцутюн.
Avetik 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, but there is nothing about "Sevan", that was the objection. Avetik 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. You can write Yerkramas publisher and editor Mr. Tigran Tavadyan ( info at yerkramas dot org ) to confirm this information. After reading Wikipedia article, he personally emailed me on this topic asking to please correct the information... Avetik 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
By putting the WPTR tag, i was not disputing that they were armenians, I know that. but I put the WPTR tag since it is a turkey related topic, feel free to add WP Russia and WP Georgia tags as well..:)) Kars is also in WP Armenia, we have to be inclusionist.. :) Baristarim 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I really hate to be a prick by asking this, but it would be really nice if somebody put some sources that attest to Hamsheni origins of Mesut Yılmaz and Murat Karayalçın.. I put a fact tag a month ago, and while I understand that this is not a very busy article and therefore provokes much less interest, it would be nice if somebody actually tried to dig up some sources on this. The thing is I have no idea if they are Hamshenis or not, they could be or they could not be.. Frankly, I don't care either way. But remember that these are living people, and as such fall under the same rules governing living person Bios, which state that claims about living people have to be substantiated thoroughly.. I will let the fact tags stay for a long while again, till someone comes up with some info on this.. cheers Baristarim 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish we had access to the source there, Erhan G. Ersoy's book, see this. I e-mailed them, they might send me the article. deniz T C 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
According to an Armenian researcher there are 100000 Hamshen in Turkey and not 400000. Here is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3459 It makes no sense to exagerate the number of Hamshen in Turkey. Orrin_73
There was a link in hyeforum, I assume you did not read it. Orrin_73
someone had posted a link in the forum to a study! It is not that someone in the forum said! The claim that there are 400000 hemshin in Turkey is absurd. Orrin_73
400,000 is supposedly the total number of Hamshenians, more than 100,000 being from a Russian city. deniz T C 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article misses an objective treatment of the topic of Hemşin and its history.
It touches to the facts that the majority of people of Hemşin identify themselves as ethnic Turks and they speak Turkish only (except for Hopa-Hemşin people). I believe that the authors would also agree with the fact that the people of Hemşin proper and (except for language) Hopa-Hemşin culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor, within some local and natural diversification.
However, the article poses a very biased approach by presenting these people unquestionably to be of another origin (race?) and culture, against their own perceptions. This biased and in my view misplaced attempt is supposedly justified based on incomplete studies of the culture, language and history by some researchers of a certain school of thought.
The one sided presentation of the subject throughout the article is against the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This makes it very difficult to revise the article on a sentence-word basis and requires a major revision. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, I first want to discuss possible changes to the article in this talk page with the contributors of the article to reach a consensus, and then proceed to edit the article to come up with a Wikipedia policy compliant presentation.
Here below some basic statements:
1) Even though there has been a limited number of old texts (partially conflicting) regarding the Hemşin area, the modern day historians and linguists have only recently focused on the Hemşin region in terms of its civilization history and linguistic background.
2) To date, there has not been any conclusive consensus on the ethnical(?), cultural and linguistic roots of the "Hemşinli" leading to different schools of opinion.
3) In this article the term Hemşinli does not only refer to the present day people of Hemşin proper and Hopa-Hemşin but also to various peoples who once in history had connection to the Hemşin area. Naturally, there are differences to varying degrees in cultural, folkloric, religious and linguistic traits of these people. Consequently, the article shoud avoid giving the impression that any information or inference related to a specific group of "Hemşinli" is also necessarily valid for all other groups of the "Hemşinli" as well.
Before proceeding any further with the detailed discussion and editing, I want to first make sure that we all have a consensus with the above points. Such a consensus would enable us to have a healthy and productive discussion on the article. Omer182 12:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the discussion above, I propose to start editing the article with the first paragraph, as clarified below. I suggest that the first paragraph focus only on the literal meaning of the term which forms the title of the article, and postpone the presentation of details to the relevant sections.
The proposed form for the first paragraph is as follows:
"The term "Hamsheni" has recently been used (in non-turkish sources) to refer to a number of diverse groups of people who, in the past history or present, have in one way or another been affiliated with the Hemşin area. In historical documents this term is absent. Depending on the pronunciation and language used other designations like Hemshinlis or Khemshils; Armenian : Համշենի ; Russian : Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi ( სუმეხი ) [2] ) are used as well. The turkish equivalent of the word is "Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er). This is the designation used by people who still live in Hemşin or have ongoing affiliation thereto through family ties." Omer182 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose to resume editing the article with the "Origins" section. I propose to discuss the history in this section and consequently rename the section as "History". I suggest that the issues of culture (religion, language and changes therein) be addressed in the subsequent section ("Groups").
My proposal for the "History" section is as follows:
"The foundation of Hemşin is often related to a migration which is claimed to have taken place in the 7th to 9th centuries from Armenia to the Hemşin region. Short passages from the medieval Armenian chronics Ghewond, Asoghik and John Mamikonian form the primary references for the migration, in spite of the fact that there are fundamental contradictions between them with regard to the time and accompanying circumstances of the migration. Neither of the chronics associate the Hemşin area clearly with the migration. The common element is the mention of a Prince Hamam who was either a leader of the migration or a descendant of the migrants.
Regardless of the ambiguities surrounding this migration, it is generally accepted that the migrants confessed to the Christian faith and belonged to the Armenian Church. There ara no specific indications with regard to the language and/or other ethnical characteristics of the migrants. Some Turkish historians deduce that those were Turks; while many other historians deduce that those were Armenians.
Even if the migrants have really settled down in Hemşin, whether and by whom Hemşin was populated prior to that migration and what has happened to them is not clear. There are views which suggest that the area was uninhabited due to its difficult terrain whereas opposing approaches argue that the area was already influenced by earlier movements of people which possibly include ancient anatolian people as well as caucasian and turkic tribes.
Furthermore there are contradicting views with regard to whether Hemşin remained isolated and inaccessible or whether it was open to further migrations after in the beginning of the second millennium. This is also due to the fact that there are no historical documents clearly proving either thesis.In spite of the lack of clear documentation it is deduced that Hemşin has been governed by local Lords under the umbrella of the greater regional powers changing by the time namely the Bagratid Armenian kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, its successor the Empire of Trebizond, the Georgian Kingdom , the Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu Turkmen Confederations until it was annexed in the 15 the century by the Ottoman Empire which collapsed as a result of the WW1 and gave birth to the Republic of Turkey." Omer182 ( talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My proposal for the "Groups" section is as follows:
"The Ottoman era has witnessed two major developments in the Hemsin region: Islamization and population movements. Islam faith has commenced to spread possibly prior to the Ottoman rule but it has become the general religion not before the end of the 16 th century. A number of population movements (both into and out of the region) are also known to have happened during the Ottoman era. Detailed information regarding the nature of these movements is missing. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that:
The present community of Hemşinli thus surfacing is exclusively of Islam faith and Turkish speaking. This goes for the people living in Hemşin or people still maintaining links to the area although they live all over in Turkey.
A distinct community settled about 50 Kms east of Hemşin in villages around Hopa and Borçka call themselves also “Hemşinli” and they are often referred to as the “Hopa Hemşinli”. Professor of Linguistics Bert Vaux at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee refers to this group as the “Eastern Hamshenis”. Hemşinli and Hopa Hemşinli are separated not only by geography but also by language and some features of culture and are almost oblivious to one anothers existence. It is assumed that this community has its roots in a migration from Hemşin or have been settled in this area by the Ottoman authorities. The estimations for the timeframe of this settlement varies from early 16th to late 17 th century. There are controversial opinions also on whether this migration took place in one step or whether two waves of migration took place. The Hopa Hemşinli are exclusively of Islam faith as well. Whether they have immigrated from Hemşin proper as moslems or whether they have converted to Islam in their new homeland is another question with controversial answers.
The Hopa Hemşinli speak in addition to Turkish a language called “Hemşince” or (“Homşetsi” and/or Homshetsma in some sources). Recent studies claim that this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble.
In addition to these groups there are people speking Hemşince / Homshetsma in the countries of the former USSR whose ancestors have probably originated from Hemşin and/or Hopa Hemşin in course of the various population movements to the Caucasus.
Those among them who confess to the Islam have been deported from the Adjara area of Georgia at the Stalin era to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A considerable number of these deportees have moved to Krasnodar Krai since 1989, along with the Meskhetians.
Most of those of Christian faith currently live in Abkhazia and in the Krasnodar Krai region of Russia, in particular, the Sochi area, and Adygeya." Omer182 ( talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Answering the unsigned entry dated 13 May 2008 under the title discussion:
The edits I have inflicted have been through a wikipedia policy compliant procedure, in which I have first discussed the edit proposals (one by one). Refer to the first entries just below the title "Major revision proposed" to see "where it all started". Your allegations regarding the removal of pictures and references are simply incorrect. No reference or picture has been removed by me. If you have objections to my statements, you should specifically tell me which statement you think is unfounded (BTW I have stated this numerous times on this page already). I will undo your revert. Omer182 ( talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the recent edits I now see that the unnamed user has reverted all edits I have done since Oct 9, 2007, which had commenced following my declaration and reasoning for a major revision on 11 august 2007. Al-Andalus and Macukali have then added back an image and a reference that were already removed prior to my edits (by other contributors). Basically they have collectively undone several months of edits by various contributors (in 2 days and with no discussion). I have no specific objections to the image or the reference that has been added back, but these minor edits should be isolated and should not be wholesale, and they should be discussed and mentioned. I have reverted the article back to its version on 11 May 2008. If any body wants to add references or images, please do so, as long as you discuss them here. Omer182 ( talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry on 19 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the mentioned entry has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional response. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article. Omer182 ( talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 21 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
I believe your approach would have been different if you actually read all the discussions on this page starting my first proposal for a revision (Aug. 11, 2007). I encourage you to read the discussion! My edits are not my opinions but are founded by literature. I again invite you to identify the specific statements in my edits that you think are not founded, or that you think are my opinions. This is the only way to have a meaningful discussion. If such a discussion would require to revise my entries, I would ofcourse do that... However, it is unacceptable to revert 9 months of edits and discussion just by presenting a biased view and trying hard to avoid any in depth discussion. Hence, I now revert the article to its earlier version, and kindly ask you to stop this kind of intervention which now tends to become vandalism.
PS. Regarding the picture, as I had told you earlier, I am not the one who removed it. Check the page history if you need to verify. In any case, I will reinsert it, as I don't have a particular objection to its inclusion. However bear in mind that the pic. was probably removed for some reason and if I were you I would check to see what it was. Omer182 ( talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 26 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:
no revert without discussion!... Furthermore not even any specific objections or questions or argumentation...I undo revert.. Omer182 ( talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is it "Hamshenis" rather than, for example "the Hemshin" or "Hemshinli"? Meowy 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hemshin is the original area of settlement for the Hemshinli, and from that area all of the other related communites originated. For that reason Hemshin should be at the core of the content of this article. Nobody in Hemshin would nowadays call themselves "Hamshenis" - they would use "Hemshinli", so I think it would be more apropriate to title the article "Hemshinli", or, alternatively, "The Hemshin". Meowy 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting omer because his edits consist of vandalism, removal of images and citations without consensus as well as original research in regard to the identity of the Hamshentsis. To answer both meowy and omer the armenian speaking christian hamshenis do refer to themselves as hamshentsi just like aremnians from lets say yerevan refer to themselves as yerevantsi and omer reinserts original research and misinformation as well as vandalizes images and other content. if he continues this, he will be reported. 70.21.161.85 ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing but a bling revert and some other commments which have not answered above discussion and simply reverted in a vanalous manner
AND YES YOUR EDITS ROMVING IMAGES ARE CONSIDERED VANDALISM !
. Ans yes, Hamshentis, those that left to avoid genocide still retain their distinct identity as black sea armenians, so it is important and especiall o mention proper spelling hamsentsis rather than omers "turkification." one more revert and he will be reported to ANI 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Coming back to the discussion on the title issue:
It seems difficult to relate all people related to Hemşin to a single ethnical group. In fact even the concept of ethnicity seems to be problematic for many. It is worth noting that the definition of etnicity as described in Wikipedia ( Ethnic group) begins with a quote from Max Weber, "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether"
Another interesting quote from Ben Fowkes (Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World) is as follows:
"In his seminal work, Ethnic Origins of Nations, published in 1986, Smith listed six necessary ethnic attributes. These can be summarized as: a collective name; a common myth of descent; a shared history; a distinctive shared culture, comprising language and/or religion and/or institutions and/or other cultural features; an association with a specific territory; and finally a sense of ethnic solidarity, in other words a recognition of each other as members of the same ethnic group. Smith's view in 1986 was that all these features had to be present to establish the existence of ethnicity (Smith, 1986: 15). Later on he abandoned this insistence, arguing instead that: ‘the more [of these attributes] they have the more they approximate to the ideal type of an ethnie’ (Smith, 1991: 21). But the individual's own subjective consciousness of belonging to an ethnic community, in other words the sense of ethnic solidarity referred to above, is the most important feature of all"
Obviously this article is not about the concept of ethnicity itself. However, it is a fact that present people of/from Hemşin-proper, Hopa- Hemşin and those in Caucasions who identify themselves as Hemşinli/Hamsheni do not share the attributes listed above. Therefore it is not possible to consider them to be of the same ethnicity.
Hakob: I agree that "Hemshin people" would be a better title for this article. However, my reservation is that this term is not established in the relevant literature. Omer182 ( talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Omer,
Unfortunately wiki is not a place for you to publish your opinions and your interpretations of Hamshenis as a group of Armenian people. You continue to remove content and not justify it, including the picture. I have no choice but to report you. 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
i did and there is no consensus - defining an ethnic group is not goal of wikipedia and words hamshenis has been used is your original research, the bert vaux paper is definitive topic on paper and I reported you once. do not make me do it again 67.49.45.88 ( talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From my talk:
please protect hamshenis page, omer keeps adding original research, no citations and refuses to explain his mass edits, where there is not consensus. 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you, guys, think I should protect the article to help you solve the problem on the talk page? I do not see much edit warring now. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, loook athis edits, vandalism and original research interpretations. he removes dozens of cited ideas sentences for his blabber, anti-armenianism and so on 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to adress the concerns regarding my edits mentioned above:
My approach to editing has been completely in complience with the wikipedia policies. Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007. Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on this page. My reason for proposing revision was my opinion that the entry did not stand NPOV as it was. After waiting for app. 20 days, with no response from the contributors, I put a reminder that I was waiting for a response on 2 September 2007. Eventually, with no confrontation and actually some vague agreement on my proposal, I put a dispute tag (9 October 2007). Then, I started the procedure for section by section editing which comprised of first posting the proposal for the edits regarding the relevant section and waiting for discussion for a reasonable amount of time. My first proposal was posted on 28 October 2007 in the discussion page. All my edits have been implemented following the procedure outlined above. So far, I have edited the introduction paragraph of the article, and two sections. My last edit was dated 13 April 2007.
Regarding the responses to my edits, I should say that I did not get any discussion! Starting with 17 January 2007, some users (partially with only IP addresses) have engaged in wholesale reverts, one after the other. The last in chain is the user IP:67.49.46.213 who is the reason for this discussion. There were two aspects common to the approaches of all these users:
Actually I kindly invited them (numerous times) to specifically tell me which statements in my edits they believed were unsourced or were incorrect. Unfourtunately, I did not get any responses so far.
User IP:67.49.46.213 keeps insistantly making wholesale reverts with no discussions. His/her responses to my invitations for discussion were not understandable, and many times emotional and angry. Just as an example, last part of his/her remark on the summary of his/her most recent revert reads "..no one agrees with your vandalsim, shoo leave bad turkce!". The language is not understandable and does not say anything solid regarding the entry. Several other examples can be observed if one goes through the history of the article as well as the discussions above.
I am not sure if it is still important to touch the "removed picture" issue, after what I have written above, but for the record, I want to say that I have not removed any pictures. I had removed a template by mistake, and realizing this I put it back, after I was warned (see my entry on 11 May 2008 on this page under groups section). The picture that user IP:67.49.46.213 mentiones is the "A Hamsheni woman in traditional dress" picture which was removed by another user before my edits. I have tried telling this to user IP:67.49.46.213 numerous times, but due to communication problems I could never get my message across.
Finally, with regard to allegations related to original research/unsourced edit/ removal of sourced contributions, I want to quote here again my input on 23 April 2007 on this page: "...In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source 'The Kingdom of Armenia: A History' by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it. If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify".
A quick glance at the discussion page under the heading "major revision proposed" will verify all my responses above. Omer182 ( talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this is my final try with omer. here he can place and discuss all edits he wamnts to add or remove, one by one, instead of vandilizing page. his edits should be backed by citations and there should be consensus. if he does not work and simply reverts, admins should ban or protect. i have been trying for weeks without a response from this vandal. 67.49.46.213 ( talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is yet another case of nationalism denying the blatantly obvious. This article should be re-edited to remove Omer's 'contributions' that are based solely on the fear that the idea of a separate Armenian-rooted Hamsheni identity might somehow infringe on Turkey's mono-cultural Turkic identity. A large proportion of Turkey's population is of Armenian descent anyway; get over it. -- 158.143.55.45 ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't Hemshin people be a better title for this article? Hakob ( talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you all might find this interesting. I occasionally read English and Armenian language posts on the Hamshen Forum and was surprised to discover that there is now a Hamshen newspaper in Yerevan ( Dzayn Hamshenakan or Voice of Hamshen). The monthly newspaper, in Armenian and Russian, is distributed for free both in Armenia and on the internet. I was browsing through one of their 2007 issues, and there was lots of interesting stuff, such as an article with pictures on an Armenian/Hamshen church that will soon be constructed in Gagra, an overview of a book on Hemshinli by Hovan Simonian, and information on the Hemshinli in Turkey. I could only read four pages though, as I do not read Russian. Hakob ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, your requirement for citation for the first sentence of the lead section seems to me awkward ...You know that there is nohing to challenge there..This fact is explained and studied in all publications including of course a number of them in the reference list of the entry (Vaux, Beninghaus, Simonian)... Therefore a requirement for citiation is in essence superflous ..Moreover our mutual discussion about the name of this very article is also due to this fact... I cannot see your requirement as an attempt to create a better article.
However I have included some specific citiations to optically clear the article from unneccesary tags and or to avoid getting engaged in an edit war irrespective of whether they are required.
Your tag regarding the use of Hemshinli /Hamsheni (in the lead section) served a purpose!...By reexamination I have found that "Hamsheni" is not used in the referenced publications... It is perhaps used in website forum pages and the like....So I removed the related sentence....
I have removed also the sentence tackling the term Hemshin as identification of the people.I believe this info could be valuable (it is true , that an important publication introduces this term seriously in addition to the classical Hemshinli in English: it may become important and widespread in the future) however it is not worthwhile to try to prove it to you. Omer182 ( talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, the inline citations are needed only for those statements which are challenged Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regarding the fact tags you placed in the groups section, do you challenge the factuality of the statements there? I have already asked this before. Please write down what you challenge for the record. Omer182 ( talk) 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
After the removal of those two sentences in the current lead section there is little difference in the content between the version you removed a week ago and the curent version beyond the fact that the current version does not follow the standard wikipedia form and many of its sentences are not particularly concise. So I have taken most of the earlier version, abbreviated it a bit, and incorporated the bits of the current version that it did not contain. I've added "Homshentsi" as a third alternative name since it is used in the cited Bert Vaux source. I've also added a fact tag for the Muslim Hemshinli in Georgia claim - though I think it is true, it does need a source (and since I didn't write it I don't know the source). If any other parts of it are thought to need a reference, then add fact tags and I will add the references. Meowy 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead section is being changed through edits without prior agreement on talk page since some time. Although my preference is to reach an agreement on talk page first (for the lead section and all others) I have no other choice but to follow that line as well.
Just now I have made such an edit.
For the sake of clarity I recall the recent developments as follows:
June 9: the then standing lead section, which was mainly worded by myself, was edited with the declared purpose of (An attempt to get a neutral lead).
June 12: I inquired what was "unneutral" in the removed paragraph and put forward what in my view was not correct in the new edit.
From there on I was confronted with no arguments but insults.
Several direct edits took place...In this course I have tried to carry as much as I can from texts entered by the counterparty.
My edit dated June 21 included also all the requested inline citations and references.
Also this one was, however, fundamentally changed (June 22) and whole sections I had proposed were removed with no clear explanations, using artificial and untrue excuses (like "this version is very similar to my earlier version"...) or vague complaints (concerning "wikipedia standard format"). This change reinserted also the POV statements about which I had explained my concerns on June 12 and did not address or even consider my comments raised by then.
In response, I have again updated the lead section (June 25), taking the relevant parts from the recent edit and removing the POV statements. Unfourtunately, this was followed by an immediate revert.
As a renewed attempt to achieve agreement, I have now updated the most recent version, keeping the referenced material, adding fully referenced information and have tried to achieve a wikipedia policies complient form. Omer182 ( talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)