![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article covers the issues regarding the so much publicized but never executed trials. There is a huge list of articles and sections in books about the event. In these sources under this section the questions of why did it never executed? was there a lack of evidance? Thanks. -- OttomanReference 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Object ! Malta Tribunals proves that there was no armenian genocide . its importance is same as Nuremberg trails. people like you should not manuplate wikipedia users and try to spread false history .thats why everybody should know about malta trails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.56 ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The content is referred in cited sources as (1) "international tribunals" or (2) tribunals of Malta exiles. The name "International Tribunals would not really be defining choice as there are many other international tribunals. I personally like to keep the "Malta Tribunals", however this should be open to discussion. Thanks for your efforts. -- OttomanReference 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Have I somehow found myself in Wikifiction? How can there be an article about something that was non-existant? Will you Turkish deniers stop at nothing to deny the Armenian Genocide and the guilt of those involved. Will we next see an article on the role of extraterrestials in fermenting rebellion in the ottoman Empire? Really what is next? This article needs to be deleated. Again you have suceeded wasting our time.-- THOTH 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
THOTH objects the title with the name "Malta" in it. I propose to change the title to " International Trials of Ottoman Empire" as the detainees were hold on a wide range of reasons.-- OttomanReference 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)--
THOTH claims "Brits were relying on documents generated and held by the US State Department for their prosecution. US was unwilling to turn these documents over at that time - thus no case". Is there a source which collects these information that is not returned? Because if this is limited with the validity of The Blue Book, The Blue Book as a war propaganda has been documented. In this case US did a very decent act not to turn this into an international fiasco which could claim on peoples life at Malta! Also, Why did Brits did not used their documents. if there is a crime, how could Brits not know it? At the time Brits had an extensive information system at the Ottoman system. An empire (Brits) which can organize the Arab Revolt, why does it needs US information? We have the personal position of THOTH, please give some citations. Is there any proof that Blue Book is not another case of WMD. OttomanReference 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
: The Myotis says "I will search for them" Thanks for your response, I will be looking forward for the article which shows that US officials hold on to an "evidence which could have prosecuted one or more responsible parties". Regarding the moral sense, it is, obviously that Turkish sources claim that if a genocide can be decided on a moral sense; then the international community need to find another word to what happened to Jews during WWII. It is mind blowing to me that this article does not have included that citation. A proof such as would have solved the Genocide conflict. I believe the Turkish historians will change their position, if there exits an evidence with the Burden of proof given (not just accusations and claims). It is impossible not to remember the recent US Intelligence (information gathering) issues. Thanks for your response. OttomanReference 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before: [6] which includes on the Blue Book, and here [7] on Malta regarding American, British and Ottoman records which Fadix had already addressed long time ago. How long people will still keep bringing back old discussions which were already addressed?-- MarshallBagramyan 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep thinking that articles are created for us to analyze claims rather than on the basis of the subject being notable. A Malta Tribunal article can not exist when there was no “Malta Tribunal” in the first place. It's not written in any work, check the link on Fadix's answer, he quoted the only notable Turkish author who wrote on the subject and the author in question writes: “As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.” No notable work or paper writes about a fictional tribunal.-- MarshallBagramyan 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
THOTH wrote: "There was no such thing as the "tribunals", "international trials", or "Malta trials", depending on the (propoganda) source." What kind of sentence is that? THOTH in this sentence accept that there are propaganda sources (which by the way one of them is Famous "Armenian Historian") that are explaining the events which he says "no such thing as the "tribunals"". I guess his/her native thong was interfering, but hope he can find a better way to express what he wants to say. This sentence looks funny. Could you explain what that really mean in your mind? Thanks. -- OttomanReference 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You have introduced some arguments and you claim that they are coming from a source; Could you gave the source with page numbers and which paragraphs you acquire these arguments. I would like you tell me which paragraphs these sentences are acquired. Please use the wikipedia Citation format. Thanks -- OttomanReference 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Two chapters cover this issue - both in Part 3 of the book - The Investigations and Prosecution of the War Crimes and Genocide - Chapter 6 is entitled The Question of Punishing the Turks and Chapter 9 (concerned primarily with the Post War Ottoman Military tribunals and the role of the Nationalists in truncating them - The Final Phase of the Trials. In Chapter 9 (page 358) he presents the following - "The Allies had mountains of documents relatedto the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals. So the problem of finding enough evidence to take individuals to court remained unresolved....a large portion of the relevant documents (held by the Ottomans) had been destroyed or stolen, and there was no coordination between British and Turkish Authorities. The British never requested incriminating documentation. (several specific quotes from British officials follow regarding the hopelessenss of expecting to get such documentation from the Turks...for instance...) "...in August 1919, High Commissioner Calthorpe had said - 'The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain.' - Admiral de Robeack was similarly concerned. 'It would be hard under these conditions to convict most of the exiles before an Allied court.' Thus, the British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution and decided to hold the exiles as hostages against British prisoners of war." Akcam goes on to describe the fact that the Turkish government was never pressured to provide any evidence and other Allied governments were equally uncooperative. Thus - no "Malta Tribunals" (again this name is never mentioned in Akcam's book) and no International Trials - regardless of (unratified_ Sevres or any statement of intention by any Allied power - no such thing ever occured - not even any attempt to set up a court or to truly make any attempt to assemble a legal case. So this article of yours here is faulty in its premiss and concerne entirely fictional speculation and misrepresentation on your part.-- THOTH 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article does not say anything that we cannot include on the Malta Exiles. OttomanReference has created so many useless fork articles that I have lost track of them all. Much of them can be consolidated into one concise page yet we must have numerous, useless articles that recycle information and citation dump them from one another.
This article is perfect example of which. It's unfortunate its AFD did not pass, moreso that uses unfamiliar with the topic voted to keep it, because much of the information on this article can more than very easily be incorporated into its mother article. Why is that we cannot include the reasons as to why the Malta exiles were not tried and the significance of the tribunals on that page? I'm growing weary of jumping from one article to the next to see how much new information they even offer only to see another fork has been created. This is definitely deserving of a second nomination for an AFD.-- MarshallBagramyan 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I have brought this to your attention. Numerous times, I have told you to discuss your edits and yet numerous times you have duly ignored them. Your cynical sarcasm does not amuse me and accusing me of demagogic or POV attacks strikes of hypocrisy as they have been the crux of all your retorts. If I remember correctly, it was you who called me " an Armenian Joke" and insulted me numerous times with your personal attacks.
The creation of these countless, and often misleading, articles that you have created, without even completing them or adding fuller information, only complicates matters for the worse.-- MarshallBagramyan 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does not make logical sense. It is saying that the Ottomans held captive in Malta were exchanged for British prisoners of war. That's just false. The Ottomans were found innocent after 2 years of trials. The logical problem here is, British occupied Istanbul and the Sultan leadership, so why would they exchange "high profile criminals who supposedly committed the Armenian genocide" for simple British POWs when they already own the whole Empire and can threaten the sultans life with a pistol? It makes absolutely no sense. However, the statement does make sense if you look at the source of the information... The Armenian foreign ministry. Why isn't the source from Britain archives? The British should write this article not Armenian nationalists. Am I wrong here? Arsenic99 ( talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Deeply embarrassed by the exchange of the hostages Lord Curzon minuted : “The less we say about these people (the Turks released for exchange) the better … I had to explain (to Parliament) why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta, skating over thin ice as quickly as I could … The staunch belief among Members (of Parliament) is that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused”. Dr Bonello concludes this particular chapter highlighting the fact that the Armenian Genocide controversy lingers on after almost 100 years with the prospects of a solution very meagre." Vmelkon ( talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is an excellent example how the followers of the Armenian genocide hijack Wikipedia and cover up matters that shows that their case is no solid. A Shameful act, a disgrace for what Wikipedia is intent to be. Chonanh ( talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sections between Name and Turkish trials edited. Slow going because of the language barrier and confused narrative. More to come. Already evident are POV and citation issues that a copy edit cannot remove. Forst I will finish the edit, then I will consider the appropriate consultation that might occur. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Another hard slog. Particularly difficult was interpreting the broken English and poor grammar for meaning and intent. While I have attempted to remove some of the more obvious point of view perspective, without removing references, I have serious doubts about the references themselves, and about the objectivity of the article even after my copy edit. I don't think I can really change that deficiency without devoting considerable time over an extended period to conduct research and verify sources. It is not my intention to add such a project to my list, though I may contribute.
In the meantime I'm going to template the article to invite further references.
I have also formed the view that the title of the article is ambiguous and possibly inappropriate, requiring some work in disambiguation pages. That's a job I may bring to the attention to someone with an interest in this period of history.
More work needs to be done on the copy edit, which I will resume at my earliest opportunity.
Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I have completed my copy edit, removed the copy edit template from the main page, but replaced it with a template looking for more and creditable third-party references. My reason was that there appears to be unduly heavy reliance on one particular source, some others appear to be primary sources, and yet others appear to be difficult to assess or are dead links.
That aside, the impression I formed in proofing this page was that it was an orphan - a page with no clear parentage or association, and that it might therefore become lost. One of the factors in my thinking was the naming of the page, which doesn't actually refer to the subject matter. Without reference to the subject matter (WWI, Armenia, Ottoman Empire, alleged genocide/massacres, British prisoners at Malta, etc) in the title, how will anyone who does not know the precise name ever find this page?
Since I don't have any particular interest in the subject of the page, and because I didn't wish to artificially incite renewed animosity between Armenians and Turks, I thought I'd seek an opinion from a senior Wikipedia editor or administrator on what the options might be for moving ahead with this page. I have no clear ideas on what such options might look like and was hoping to discuss with someone who also had no particular stake in the subject matter, but was knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and perhaps also precedents for dealing with naming and page orphans.
So I went to the administrator forum to seek some input, but was advised that I need to seek a consensus on this page first. I'm not really sure what I would seek a consensus on, except to seek administrator advice on what a reasonable proposal to the editors here might look like. My question to all editors involved in this page is as follows:
Should we seek administrator input on what our options are to address any potential problems with naming of the page, or a possible orphan status?
Please let me know your thoughts (on this page) at your earliest opportunity. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article promotes the view that the Turkish Prisoners at Malta were exchanged with British POW's, it implies that these people were otherwise guilty and should not have been released. The information, the bases of this claim is rested upon the Armenian Archives, which I, along with many belive to be unreliable due to the Armenian governments' vested interest to promote the Turkish as villans in the eyes of the world.
I have therefore have and am conducting research which is prodominantely based upon British Archives and we can clearly see that the Armenian claim is not valid. It is as follows: "I circulate to the Cabinet a long list of prominent Turkish politicians, ex-Ministers, Generals, Deputies and others whom we are still keeping as prisoners at Malta. It seems to me that this list should be carefully revised by the Attorney-General, and that those men against whom it Is not proposed to take definite proceedings should at the first convenient opportunity be released.. They are a burden and a cost to us while they are on our hands, and I am not at all clear how long we are expected to go on holding them.
The above quote is from the arcgives of the War cabinet 1920. We can clearly see that Winston Churchill is refering to these Prisoners as "holding them" the term holding them means they are held without reason which is why he is eager to let them go.To add to this it reads still this indicates there is no reason to hold them for normaly one would not use still holding them for someone who has commited a crime and must be held. In no way is there a reference to switching of prisoners. May I also remind you this document is under the classifcation of Secret therefore reflects the true way in which the British government was thinking and acting. I shall be adding many more refferences tomorrow for I have no tiem to do so today. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop conducting original research. What you think would have happened or his motivation is no relevant unless voiced by an expert. Please reply with sources (on the subject of Churchill). What we can see here is a clear message which reads as quoted, no more no less. To add to this; if the evidence against the Turks was so strong, why was noone convicted within 3 years (1918-1921) before the National Movement became strong? I am providing and will continue to provide nuetral sources, who are neither Turksi/Azeri, I also advise you to do the same. For Mr Balakian is not a nuetral source as he is a side in this ehtnic dispute. You have said it yourself "Churchill is saying that if the government has no serious intention of trying these individuals, especially on account of the fact that they are a financial burden on the military" It is obscene to believe that "guilty" people would not be trialed because they are a drain on British Finances; I mean obviously cans of beans will bankrupt the greatest empire the world has seen. I can also assure you I am a very fluent English speaker and I have not produced a distorted interpretation of the text, it is possible that you, accidentaly have. You accuse me of Original Reserach when you can clearly see the source! I am providing sources from the British Archives where as you are providing them from Armenians...
"APPENDIX D.AGREEMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
ARTICLE 1. AJ1 British prisoners of war and other British nationals or members of the British forces, who are held in' Turkey against their will, shall immediately be released and conveyed to Constantinople. Theponveyance of such persons shall be effected by and at the expense of the Turkish authorities in whosehands they now are.
ARTICLE 2. The repatriation of Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians now in the hands of the British authorities shall commence at once, and shall continue as quickly as possible. This will not apply, however, to persons whom it is intended to try for alleged offences in violation of the laws and customs of war, or for massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war in territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on 1st August, 1914. The British Government may make it a condition of the release of any particular individuals that they shall not visit Constantinople before the restoration of a state of peace,and shall have the right to arrest and detain them in the event of this condition being violated.
ARTICLE 3, This agreement shall come into force on the date of signature, and its execution shall be proceeded withas quickly as possible."
Notice Article 2 which clearly shows us that the agreement indicates that the accused would not be released. In the end all 64 members were released. This tells us that no more were they accused and thus the prisoner exhange was not the major factor in their release as the article states accused people would not be released. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
My friend I am not ignoring ot choosing to ingnore the background on the contrary I am taking it in to account. The British cabinet was full with Turkophobics just as you correctly put it. Turkey had also lost the war. Britain would have done all within its powers to degrade Turkey on the international stage. The Ottoman government? I was under the distinct impression that the Ottoman government was under British controll, one would asume so for the Ottoman government was in Istanbul which the British possed and the Sultan too was siding with the British. So to say the Ottoman government was uncooperative is far from the truth. I still can not understand why the British who had "strong evidence" against the Turks could not produce a short trial. The Nueremberg Trials only took 11 months but Malta Tribunals took nearly 3 years. This tells us that the people were not guilty.
Lord Curzon is quoted as "There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre ... There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt ... Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution" I'll let you interpret this quote. The same argument is brought up because the argument is very much valid. I have provided not one but two pieaces of information, one being the actual agreement therefore these are not silly claims but valid substantiated reasons. In due tiem I will be placing the terms of prisoner exchange within the article. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Sir I am finding that you are conducting Original Reserach that is loosely tied to this article. What matters is the archivial evidence that we currently have and the importance of including hem within the article. Refusal to do so is mearly POV pushing. You can speculate all you like about Ottomans burning the evidence but it is what it is, nothing but speculation. And an encylopedic article such as this does not give credinance to speculations. You are right about circular argument. I provide valid sources where as you conduct origininal rserach and make assumptions and speculations again I give you do the same and so on, so in that respects it is very repetitive. I assure you I am not ignorant in this matter but I am not sure of other editors. I am not making controversial changes, however you have (deleting 1,800 bytes of sources material). What I am proposing is including an international agreement with signitures of both parties. I am discussing but you attempt to rear the subject of its path, I am not threatening; saying I will add on to the article and fill the inadequcies is not threatening but being helpful. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I went through original research as a reply to yours. I have given inforation concerning the agreement between the British and the Turks and have the documents to prove them. I will therefore add this agreement in to the article. This agreement is a historic fact and can not be hidden. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I will not interpret the agreement in the article. I will mearly present the agreement in a quote format so there can be no mistake in interpretation. I will let the reader form their own opinions. This is a key component which must be added in order to ensure the full coverage of events. You have provided one reliable secondary source which was a quote and I replied with another quote so to say I am inadequate is mistaken at best. I am in a far better position they you are. I repeat once amore, I will add, in quote format Article 2 of the agreement. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Lack of evidence? How interesting that Allies found no evidence of so called genocide while they occupied Turkish Capital, İstanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.41.245 ( talk) 11:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The telegraphs were incomplete. I can see that past editors were trying to hide the contents and highlight only the parts they wanted to show.
It is crucial to find the rest of the content of the first one that is included:
If it's not found, then it renders the section irrelevant in this particular case, as the decision to exchange the prisoners was already made in March 16, 1921, well before this particular telegraph was sent (on March 31, 1921).
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article covers the issues regarding the so much publicized but never executed trials. There is a huge list of articles and sections in books about the event. In these sources under this section the questions of why did it never executed? was there a lack of evidance? Thanks. -- OttomanReference 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Object ! Malta Tribunals proves that there was no armenian genocide . its importance is same as Nuremberg trails. people like you should not manuplate wikipedia users and try to spread false history .thats why everybody should know about malta trails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.56 ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The content is referred in cited sources as (1) "international tribunals" or (2) tribunals of Malta exiles. The name "International Tribunals would not really be defining choice as there are many other international tribunals. I personally like to keep the "Malta Tribunals", however this should be open to discussion. Thanks for your efforts. -- OttomanReference 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Have I somehow found myself in Wikifiction? How can there be an article about something that was non-existant? Will you Turkish deniers stop at nothing to deny the Armenian Genocide and the guilt of those involved. Will we next see an article on the role of extraterrestials in fermenting rebellion in the ottoman Empire? Really what is next? This article needs to be deleated. Again you have suceeded wasting our time.-- THOTH 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
THOTH objects the title with the name "Malta" in it. I propose to change the title to " International Trials of Ottoman Empire" as the detainees were hold on a wide range of reasons.-- OttomanReference 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)--
THOTH claims "Brits were relying on documents generated and held by the US State Department for their prosecution. US was unwilling to turn these documents over at that time - thus no case". Is there a source which collects these information that is not returned? Because if this is limited with the validity of The Blue Book, The Blue Book as a war propaganda has been documented. In this case US did a very decent act not to turn this into an international fiasco which could claim on peoples life at Malta! Also, Why did Brits did not used their documents. if there is a crime, how could Brits not know it? At the time Brits had an extensive information system at the Ottoman system. An empire (Brits) which can organize the Arab Revolt, why does it needs US information? We have the personal position of THOTH, please give some citations. Is there any proof that Blue Book is not another case of WMD. OttomanReference 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
: The Myotis says "I will search for them" Thanks for your response, I will be looking forward for the article which shows that US officials hold on to an "evidence which could have prosecuted one or more responsible parties". Regarding the moral sense, it is, obviously that Turkish sources claim that if a genocide can be decided on a moral sense; then the international community need to find another word to what happened to Jews during WWII. It is mind blowing to me that this article does not have included that citation. A proof such as would have solved the Genocide conflict. I believe the Turkish historians will change their position, if there exits an evidence with the Burden of proof given (not just accusations and claims). It is impossible not to remember the recent US Intelligence (information gathering) issues. Thanks for your response. OttomanReference 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before: [6] which includes on the Blue Book, and here [7] on Malta regarding American, British and Ottoman records which Fadix had already addressed long time ago. How long people will still keep bringing back old discussions which were already addressed?-- MarshallBagramyan 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep thinking that articles are created for us to analyze claims rather than on the basis of the subject being notable. A Malta Tribunal article can not exist when there was no “Malta Tribunal” in the first place. It's not written in any work, check the link on Fadix's answer, he quoted the only notable Turkish author who wrote on the subject and the author in question writes: “As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.” No notable work or paper writes about a fictional tribunal.-- MarshallBagramyan 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
THOTH wrote: "There was no such thing as the "tribunals", "international trials", or "Malta trials", depending on the (propoganda) source." What kind of sentence is that? THOTH in this sentence accept that there are propaganda sources (which by the way one of them is Famous "Armenian Historian") that are explaining the events which he says "no such thing as the "tribunals"". I guess his/her native thong was interfering, but hope he can find a better way to express what he wants to say. This sentence looks funny. Could you explain what that really mean in your mind? Thanks. -- OttomanReference 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You have introduced some arguments and you claim that they are coming from a source; Could you gave the source with page numbers and which paragraphs you acquire these arguments. I would like you tell me which paragraphs these sentences are acquired. Please use the wikipedia Citation format. Thanks -- OttomanReference 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Two chapters cover this issue - both in Part 3 of the book - The Investigations and Prosecution of the War Crimes and Genocide - Chapter 6 is entitled The Question of Punishing the Turks and Chapter 9 (concerned primarily with the Post War Ottoman Military tribunals and the role of the Nationalists in truncating them - The Final Phase of the Trials. In Chapter 9 (page 358) he presents the following - "The Allies had mountains of documents relatedto the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals. So the problem of finding enough evidence to take individuals to court remained unresolved....a large portion of the relevant documents (held by the Ottomans) had been destroyed or stolen, and there was no coordination between British and Turkish Authorities. The British never requested incriminating documentation. (several specific quotes from British officials follow regarding the hopelessenss of expecting to get such documentation from the Turks...for instance...) "...in August 1919, High Commissioner Calthorpe had said - 'The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain.' - Admiral de Robeack was similarly concerned. 'It would be hard under these conditions to convict most of the exiles before an Allied court.' Thus, the British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution and decided to hold the exiles as hostages against British prisoners of war." Akcam goes on to describe the fact that the Turkish government was never pressured to provide any evidence and other Allied governments were equally uncooperative. Thus - no "Malta Tribunals" (again this name is never mentioned in Akcam's book) and no International Trials - regardless of (unratified_ Sevres or any statement of intention by any Allied power - no such thing ever occured - not even any attempt to set up a court or to truly make any attempt to assemble a legal case. So this article of yours here is faulty in its premiss and concerne entirely fictional speculation and misrepresentation on your part.-- THOTH 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article does not say anything that we cannot include on the Malta Exiles. OttomanReference has created so many useless fork articles that I have lost track of them all. Much of them can be consolidated into one concise page yet we must have numerous, useless articles that recycle information and citation dump them from one another.
This article is perfect example of which. It's unfortunate its AFD did not pass, moreso that uses unfamiliar with the topic voted to keep it, because much of the information on this article can more than very easily be incorporated into its mother article. Why is that we cannot include the reasons as to why the Malta exiles were not tried and the significance of the tribunals on that page? I'm growing weary of jumping from one article to the next to see how much new information they even offer only to see another fork has been created. This is definitely deserving of a second nomination for an AFD.-- MarshallBagramyan 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I have brought this to your attention. Numerous times, I have told you to discuss your edits and yet numerous times you have duly ignored them. Your cynical sarcasm does not amuse me and accusing me of demagogic or POV attacks strikes of hypocrisy as they have been the crux of all your retorts. If I remember correctly, it was you who called me " an Armenian Joke" and insulted me numerous times with your personal attacks.
The creation of these countless, and often misleading, articles that you have created, without even completing them or adding fuller information, only complicates matters for the worse.-- MarshallBagramyan 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does not make logical sense. It is saying that the Ottomans held captive in Malta were exchanged for British prisoners of war. That's just false. The Ottomans were found innocent after 2 years of trials. The logical problem here is, British occupied Istanbul and the Sultan leadership, so why would they exchange "high profile criminals who supposedly committed the Armenian genocide" for simple British POWs when they already own the whole Empire and can threaten the sultans life with a pistol? It makes absolutely no sense. However, the statement does make sense if you look at the source of the information... The Armenian foreign ministry. Why isn't the source from Britain archives? The British should write this article not Armenian nationalists. Am I wrong here? Arsenic99 ( talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Deeply embarrassed by the exchange of the hostages Lord Curzon minuted : “The less we say about these people (the Turks released for exchange) the better … I had to explain (to Parliament) why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta, skating over thin ice as quickly as I could … The staunch belief among Members (of Parliament) is that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused”. Dr Bonello concludes this particular chapter highlighting the fact that the Armenian Genocide controversy lingers on after almost 100 years with the prospects of a solution very meagre." Vmelkon ( talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is an excellent example how the followers of the Armenian genocide hijack Wikipedia and cover up matters that shows that their case is no solid. A Shameful act, a disgrace for what Wikipedia is intent to be. Chonanh ( talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sections between Name and Turkish trials edited. Slow going because of the language barrier and confused narrative. More to come. Already evident are POV and citation issues that a copy edit cannot remove. Forst I will finish the edit, then I will consider the appropriate consultation that might occur. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Another hard slog. Particularly difficult was interpreting the broken English and poor grammar for meaning and intent. While I have attempted to remove some of the more obvious point of view perspective, without removing references, I have serious doubts about the references themselves, and about the objectivity of the article even after my copy edit. I don't think I can really change that deficiency without devoting considerable time over an extended period to conduct research and verify sources. It is not my intention to add such a project to my list, though I may contribute.
In the meantime I'm going to template the article to invite further references.
I have also formed the view that the title of the article is ambiguous and possibly inappropriate, requiring some work in disambiguation pages. That's a job I may bring to the attention to someone with an interest in this period of history.
More work needs to be done on the copy edit, which I will resume at my earliest opportunity.
Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I have completed my copy edit, removed the copy edit template from the main page, but replaced it with a template looking for more and creditable third-party references. My reason was that there appears to be unduly heavy reliance on one particular source, some others appear to be primary sources, and yet others appear to be difficult to assess or are dead links.
That aside, the impression I formed in proofing this page was that it was an orphan - a page with no clear parentage or association, and that it might therefore become lost. One of the factors in my thinking was the naming of the page, which doesn't actually refer to the subject matter. Without reference to the subject matter (WWI, Armenia, Ottoman Empire, alleged genocide/massacres, British prisoners at Malta, etc) in the title, how will anyone who does not know the precise name ever find this page?
Since I don't have any particular interest in the subject of the page, and because I didn't wish to artificially incite renewed animosity between Armenians and Turks, I thought I'd seek an opinion from a senior Wikipedia editor or administrator on what the options might be for moving ahead with this page. I have no clear ideas on what such options might look like and was hoping to discuss with someone who also had no particular stake in the subject matter, but was knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and perhaps also precedents for dealing with naming and page orphans.
So I went to the administrator forum to seek some input, but was advised that I need to seek a consensus on this page first. I'm not really sure what I would seek a consensus on, except to seek administrator advice on what a reasonable proposal to the editors here might look like. My question to all editors involved in this page is as follows:
Should we seek administrator input on what our options are to address any potential problems with naming of the page, or a possible orphan status?
Please let me know your thoughts (on this page) at your earliest opportunity. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article promotes the view that the Turkish Prisoners at Malta were exchanged with British POW's, it implies that these people were otherwise guilty and should not have been released. The information, the bases of this claim is rested upon the Armenian Archives, which I, along with many belive to be unreliable due to the Armenian governments' vested interest to promote the Turkish as villans in the eyes of the world.
I have therefore have and am conducting research which is prodominantely based upon British Archives and we can clearly see that the Armenian claim is not valid. It is as follows: "I circulate to the Cabinet a long list of prominent Turkish politicians, ex-Ministers, Generals, Deputies and others whom we are still keeping as prisoners at Malta. It seems to me that this list should be carefully revised by the Attorney-General, and that those men against whom it Is not proposed to take definite proceedings should at the first convenient opportunity be released.. They are a burden and a cost to us while they are on our hands, and I am not at all clear how long we are expected to go on holding them.
The above quote is from the arcgives of the War cabinet 1920. We can clearly see that Winston Churchill is refering to these Prisoners as "holding them" the term holding them means they are held without reason which is why he is eager to let them go.To add to this it reads still this indicates there is no reason to hold them for normaly one would not use still holding them for someone who has commited a crime and must be held. In no way is there a reference to switching of prisoners. May I also remind you this document is under the classifcation of Secret therefore reflects the true way in which the British government was thinking and acting. I shall be adding many more refferences tomorrow for I have no tiem to do so today. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop conducting original research. What you think would have happened or his motivation is no relevant unless voiced by an expert. Please reply with sources (on the subject of Churchill). What we can see here is a clear message which reads as quoted, no more no less. To add to this; if the evidence against the Turks was so strong, why was noone convicted within 3 years (1918-1921) before the National Movement became strong? I am providing and will continue to provide nuetral sources, who are neither Turksi/Azeri, I also advise you to do the same. For Mr Balakian is not a nuetral source as he is a side in this ehtnic dispute. You have said it yourself "Churchill is saying that if the government has no serious intention of trying these individuals, especially on account of the fact that they are a financial burden on the military" It is obscene to believe that "guilty" people would not be trialed because they are a drain on British Finances; I mean obviously cans of beans will bankrupt the greatest empire the world has seen. I can also assure you I am a very fluent English speaker and I have not produced a distorted interpretation of the text, it is possible that you, accidentaly have. You accuse me of Original Reserach when you can clearly see the source! I am providing sources from the British Archives where as you are providing them from Armenians...
"APPENDIX D.AGREEMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
ARTICLE 1. AJ1 British prisoners of war and other British nationals or members of the British forces, who are held in' Turkey against their will, shall immediately be released and conveyed to Constantinople. Theponveyance of such persons shall be effected by and at the expense of the Turkish authorities in whosehands they now are.
ARTICLE 2. The repatriation of Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians now in the hands of the British authorities shall commence at once, and shall continue as quickly as possible. This will not apply, however, to persons whom it is intended to try for alleged offences in violation of the laws and customs of war, or for massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war in territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on 1st August, 1914. The British Government may make it a condition of the release of any particular individuals that they shall not visit Constantinople before the restoration of a state of peace,and shall have the right to arrest and detain them in the event of this condition being violated.
ARTICLE 3, This agreement shall come into force on the date of signature, and its execution shall be proceeded withas quickly as possible."
Notice Article 2 which clearly shows us that the agreement indicates that the accused would not be released. In the end all 64 members were released. This tells us that no more were they accused and thus the prisoner exhange was not the major factor in their release as the article states accused people would not be released. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
My friend I am not ignoring ot choosing to ingnore the background on the contrary I am taking it in to account. The British cabinet was full with Turkophobics just as you correctly put it. Turkey had also lost the war. Britain would have done all within its powers to degrade Turkey on the international stage. The Ottoman government? I was under the distinct impression that the Ottoman government was under British controll, one would asume so for the Ottoman government was in Istanbul which the British possed and the Sultan too was siding with the British. So to say the Ottoman government was uncooperative is far from the truth. I still can not understand why the British who had "strong evidence" against the Turks could not produce a short trial. The Nueremberg Trials only took 11 months but Malta Tribunals took nearly 3 years. This tells us that the people were not guilty.
Lord Curzon is quoted as "There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre ... There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt ... Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution" I'll let you interpret this quote. The same argument is brought up because the argument is very much valid. I have provided not one but two pieaces of information, one being the actual agreement therefore these are not silly claims but valid substantiated reasons. In due tiem I will be placing the terms of prisoner exchange within the article. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Sir I am finding that you are conducting Original Reserach that is loosely tied to this article. What matters is the archivial evidence that we currently have and the importance of including hem within the article. Refusal to do so is mearly POV pushing. You can speculate all you like about Ottomans burning the evidence but it is what it is, nothing but speculation. And an encylopedic article such as this does not give credinance to speculations. You are right about circular argument. I provide valid sources where as you conduct origininal rserach and make assumptions and speculations again I give you do the same and so on, so in that respects it is very repetitive. I assure you I am not ignorant in this matter but I am not sure of other editors. I am not making controversial changes, however you have (deleting 1,800 bytes of sources material). What I am proposing is including an international agreement with signitures of both parties. I am discussing but you attempt to rear the subject of its path, I am not threatening; saying I will add on to the article and fill the inadequcies is not threatening but being helpful. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I went through original research as a reply to yours. I have given inforation concerning the agreement between the British and the Turks and have the documents to prove them. I will therefore add this agreement in to the article. This agreement is a historic fact and can not be hidden. Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I will not interpret the agreement in the article. I will mearly present the agreement in a quote format so there can be no mistake in interpretation. I will let the reader form their own opinions. This is a key component which must be added in order to ensure the full coverage of events. You have provided one reliable secondary source which was a quote and I replied with another quote so to say I am inadequate is mistaken at best. I am in a far better position they you are. I repeat once amore, I will add, in quote format Article 2 of the agreement. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Lack of evidence? How interesting that Allies found no evidence of so called genocide while they occupied Turkish Capital, İstanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.41.245 ( talk) 11:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The telegraphs were incomplete. I can see that past editors were trying to hide the contents and highlight only the parts they wanted to show.
It is crucial to find the rest of the content of the first one that is included:
If it's not found, then it renders the section irrelevant in this particular case, as the decision to exchange the prisoners was already made in March 16, 1921, well before this particular telegraph was sent (on March 31, 1921).