Talk:Hovhannes Kajaznuni

The ARF has nothing to do anymore

I just read an English language translation of the document (PDF). It seems it is being used as a justification for the Ottoman Empire's genocide of its Armenian population. I googled the Armenian title, but it only brought up articles where the report was referenced or discussed. I need to get my hands on an Armenian language copy. Anyway, when I saw that Derounian was associated with the AGBU I suspected he might have been a Ramgavar, which apparently he was. And obviously not a big fan of the ARF, because they didn't "like" Russia (Soviet Armenia). Hakob (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Derounian was apparently sympathetic to the Soviets, so one can understand his motivation for helping disseminate the report. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's a invention of him, a fraud. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just the other day you were claiming the man never existed ("And that so-called "John Roy Carlson" NEVER EXISTED. No verifiable sources"). What gives? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not really matter if he existed or not. The thing is that THAT document CAN'T be real. I mean, Hovhannes Katchaznouni never wrote that book. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter? I should think it does! If he didn't exist, then it would have been pretty hard for him to have edited it, don't you think? But the United States court, who tried him, and the Social Security administration, who issued him a death certificate seem to think he existed. And apparently hundreds of thousands bought his books, so someone clearly existed.

So before moving on to the next point, let's settle this one: do you still deny that this person existed? If so, please name a few of your reliable sources. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As Hakob has already mentioned, this Derounian character is not credible in anything that has to do with the ARF. In those days, the Ramgavar, Hunchakian and ARF parties were rivals and were killing each other over a power struggle and ideologies. Ramgavars and Hunchakians were pro-Soviet and ARF was anti-Soviet. It is obvious his writing (done in the 40s) was to sell the idea that Armenia needed the Soviet Union as opposed to the ARF which was on a campaign to free Armenia. Katchaznouni's alleged insignificant opinion has been blown out of proportion by TAT and every other denialist and racist Turkic-affiliated website on the net as a way to somehow justify a genocide. - Fedayee (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be true, but that is not the present issue. What he have to establish is whether or not a manifesto existed, and I have provided satisfactory evidence that it did. I understand Derounian and Katchaznouni had their own reasons for doing what they did, so I created an article on Derounian to help readers understand this. Remember that he was merely the editor, and that several editions existed beforehand. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you something? Where are your armenian sources and facts, I mean the LINKED page ones...? We are talking about a book that was allegedly written by an armenian; it is NEEDED a link of an article or something from armenian sources TALKING ABOUT that book. Don't put turkish sources; they can't be considered valid - turkish sources on an armenian article can only be considered as negative sources or not reliable, just if the article is on edit war. --Vitilsky (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to Vitilsky arguments in his talk page so as not to clutter this one. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't touch the article for adding anything about that book (The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni) until a decision is saught. Greetings, --Vitilsky (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The book cannot be disputed as it is sourced by multiple reliable sources. Just because they do not agree with your politics does not give you the right to remove cited information. Please find a reliable source that disputes the claim before you add your "anti-ARF" label to vandalize Hovhannes Katchaznouni's page. In addition, I am warning you that you should stop trying to vandalize my own user page as well, it really is immature. Also, you don't need Armenian sources to acknowledge information about Armenian people. Claiming that turkish sources "cannot be considered valid" shows an intense amount of bias in your discussion. I checked the sources and they seem to be very reliable. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is my final decision. Case closed. Greetings, --Vitilsky (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't make "decisions" and "close cases". You have violated numerous wikipedia policies. You have no sources for the book being a fraud, hence you cannot claim it is a fraud. You need sources, not me. The sourced material stays until you find any reliable sources (non-Armenian because Armenian sources tend to be biased in favor of enemies of Hovhannes Katchaznouni) — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no sources for the book being real. Adoniscik and me were in an edit war. Then we have violated numerous wikipedia policies, because of it. So don't make disruptive comments. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. I've blocked your sock puppet account, by the way. _Gb^T/c 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. User:Vahe Armenia is not my sockpuppet, it is my brother...anyway, thanx for the so-called contribution. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, You don't understand. It is easy. I have no sources. I ask for sources. That's it. You haven't got the appropriate sources for, you need a source that proves that the book is real. You haven't got it. And that book is allegedly written by him, but knowing that you don't have that source, I can say that it's written by what you call racist propagandists, but on the side of Turkey. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it smells revisionism from 1 km. It's the same as I put a link to StormFront.org in a Nazi Germany related article. It is called revisionism. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have a refined sense of smell because nobody else has raised an objection. (See also Godwin's law.) --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's Law has nothing to do here, your falsified history is what does. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent dispute

I have offered informal mediation as a solution to the recent dispute over the content of this article, but only one side has been willing to take up that route. The other (essentially Vitilsky (talk · contribs)) hasn't made the least endeavour to respond to the actual substantive dispute at hand, has continued to remove content from the article without putting forward substantive evidence as to why it should be removed, and is clearly going against consensus in so doing. In the meantime he has vandalised other user's pages, disrupted WP:RFPP and engaged in personal attacks.

I have read through all the versions of the article, and gleaned what I think are both sides' arguments for the inclusion or otherwise of the material at hand. It is clear that the book / pamphlet exists - that there may be doubts as to its authenticity is, at best, grounds for including a sentence to that effect, not grounds for the removal of whole sections of the article.

As consensus is clearly behind the version as it currently stands (ie. after this edit of Arsenic99 (talk · contribs) restoring the material, no further removals should take place without justification- the material inserted is as well sourced and verified as would appear to be possible given the nature of the original material and the time since it's original creation. Any wholesale removals by any user without first discussing it on this talk page will be considered disruptive editing. If it is done by Vitilsky (talk · contribs), then it will be seen as a continuation of his recent disruptive editing and if appropriate he will be blocked for a period of time.

I will post messages on the talk pages of the relevant editors. If anyone has any comments then to maintain the discussion in one place I recommend that they be kept here. _Gb^T/c 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have another Armenian reference that will shed some light on why it is so rare (other than the obvious fact that it paints an unfavorable picture). It's a very mundane reason, actually. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in mediating this problem. I don't see why some people are so hateful of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, he must have really angered ARF members in the past, being a leader, some labeled him a traitor for writing the secret inner workings of the ARF and presenting it to the ARF conference in Bucharest, Romania. The ARF is already an organization we know almost nothing about, and a source from a primary source, a leader of the ARF, Hovhannes Katchaznouni would shed some historical light into this organization. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have to do with the fact that the ARF was banned in Soviet Armenia, and again banned in the Republic of Armenia until the late nineties. They were fairly active in the Ottoman Empire before the genocide - I can only assume that the reason they are not very well known in Turkey today is because a) not many Turks can read Ottoman b) the myth of Ottoman and Young Turk tolerance that is being perpetuated by the state. An ARF member, Garabet Moumdjian, who reads Arabic, Armenian, English, and Turkish (as well as Ottoman) has done research in the Ottoman archives and published some articles regarding the ARF. I think he was interviewed by a Turkish magazine of some sort when he was there. If there's anyone who could shed some light on this Katchaznouni document, it's him. Hakob (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. However, I do not think the government of Turkey has any positive view of the Young Turk/CUP government, considering the amount of lives that were lost because of failed and incompetent strategies by Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha. Quite frankly, I don't think there is anyone in the world that likes the Young Turks/CUP. Although, they were definitely a lot more tolerant than the more religious Abdulhamid II and for a time they even sided with the ARF to gain power by staging a cou' d'etat together against AbdulHamid II. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Would someone be so kind as to write the titles and various names in Armenian script? I briefly looked up Garabet Moumdjian, but I could not find any actual articles online yet. Apparently he was interviewed by Tempo (Taşnaklarla İttihatçıların Abdülhamit'e karşı ittifakı, 2006-12-07). Predictably, it's not online. I'd love to read his "The Role of the Mkhitarist Order in the Propagation of Armenian Historiography." Does anyone else have any sources? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, User Gb, "that there may be doubts as to its authenticity is, at best, grounds for including a sentence to that effect"; so I included sentences to that effect. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As per my message on my talk page, that's not what you've done. _Gb^T/c 12:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I want first to add this on here and here, because I have two things to say: that the book is not available [1] [2] in the biggest libraries in London, and that the book could be a falsification. I found lots of discussion pages quoting false books written allegedly by armenians, by as I understood, it is not possible to add opinion pages here as sources. So, most of the pages when you search on internet about the book, are nationalist turkish pages or from the turkish press [3]. It is indeed needed to explain on the article that the book could be false or that it is ALLEGEDLY written by him. PD: I find that a source calling a Genocide "So-called" is not valid, see my last comment on the above section. --Vitilsky (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, I've already explained why this booklet is rare (see footnotes 2 and 14). You can find non-Turkish sources if you really insist (as I did for the sceptic's benefit), but it requires some patience. The ATAA source is used only to support the claim that the booklet is rare. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't tolerate any source claiming that there was no genocide. The sources must be clean. I suggest, adding it to my last comment, to delete as it's incompetent information from a anti-genocide page. --Vitilsky (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, the ATAA source is entirely superfluous. Remove it and the case would still be solid. I don't know if you have noticed, but most of the sources PREDATE the discovery of the Russian translation. Hmmm.... --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not try to doubt the existence of the book, and then relate it to "denying genocide" no one here is denying anything. You are the one denying the existence of a book for political purposes. Do not add any statements doubting the existence of the book unless there is a reliable source doubting it's existence. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And about the existence, I know that it exists, but I also know that it is a fraud. And you know it too. And those people of Armenian descent who write about it, are just Anti-ARF. The book is INDEED not written by Hovhannes Katchaznouni. You haven't got any source proving it. You can't buy that book as I said, in the most important libraries of Europe, because it is a fraud. H. Katchaznouni never wrote that book. No quotes about that book from him. I suggest, as I think that the best thing to do is to create a new page only about the book, and remaining this page clean from any sources related to the book. The book is questioned by the facts. --Vitilsky (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also searched the book in the online database of the Russian State Library and it didn't match any results. Your sources are a shame for Wikipedia. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting source, and I should have thought it myself, but it does not prove anything because a) libraries don't index all their material b) we don't know if the entry was transliterated c) it doesn't cast any doubt on the original. The reason you can't find it in libraries is that ARF fanatics have destroyed them. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

About a), I'll send them an personal email , About b), try to find it as Katchaznouni, Kachaznouni, Katchaznuni or Kachaznuni. These are the main possibilities. Also search Qatchaznouni, Qachaznouni, Qatchaznuni or Qachaznuni. No results. And about c) Which original? Also, have you got any source explaining your theory of that "ARF fanatics destroyed them"? Which fanatics? What do they do in the libraries destroying books? Your statements have no founding. The reason that I can't find the book is as simple as there is no book. It may be an invention. --Vitilsky (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have sources--presently in the article--but you do have to read. I think you still fail to grasp the fact that the sources PREDATE the Russian discovery. Think about that for a minute. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But you don't have sources explaining that ARF fanatics destroyed the books IN THE LIBRARIES. Nowadays. If the book had real info it might be in the libraries, but my theory is that the books never arrived the libraries because they are fraudulent. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I have three. Read the quote in footnote two. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Weinberg talks about post-Soviet times in the Soviet Union. Why should be the book banned in the UK in the 21th Century? Where are the statements of "It was banned in the greatest libraries in the world"? I personally don't believe that a book published only by a turkish press is trustful. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Weinberg says "It was banned from party clubs and libraries for decades afterwards". How many ways are there to interpret that? Why are we debating what goes on in the UK? I never said it was in a British library. How do you explain the fact that so many people knew the book before Perincek discovered the Russian translation? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And if I say that half of that "people" are one person? What do you say? And the rest (like 4 or 5 people) just based their theories on the book, which if written before Perinçek does not mean it is not fake. The facts are not your sources, the facts are the libraries, and there is not such a book anywhere. An Anti-ARF pamphlet "discovered" by a turk, what a mess... --Vitilsky (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Vitilsky, the sources are the citations, not your library search results; that's WP:OR. Your first sentence makes no sense. How are you going to find it in the libraries if ARF fanatics destroyed all the copies? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The libraries search results are not "my" library search results, these are sources, because you can also find it out. And the sources are NOT only citations. Citations are sources. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not valid sources for reasons I have explained. Yes, citations are sources, now we're talking. Where are your citations? Did you know that there are Armenian copies of the book in circulation? You might want to try tracking down a copy: ISBN 5807908945 / ISBN 9785807908940 --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Given that the main Hovhannes Kathcaznouni article is 50% comprised of detail about the book, how is The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore (book) anything other than a fork? User:Vitilsky, you were asked to detail your objections here, then if appropriate add a line or paragraph to this article, properly sourced, to the effect that there are doubts about the existence and / or verifiability of the book. Instead you've simply forked the content. _Gb^T/c 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fork because I use there useful sources to explain everything. This book is unfindable anywhere else than in Turkish webpages or in some newspaper articles written by some revisionist. The sources that match to a thesis written by Armenians don't explain the origin, they based their thesis on the pamphlet, which is objectionable. --Vitilsky (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the above discussions. No direct connection can be stated with certainty between the original Katchaznouni document and those Turkish productions. The Turkish publications are works intended for bad-faith propagandistic use, and while that in itself does not exclude the veracity of the various and overly-numerous translations of it, it does throw serious doubts upon them. The story of its "rediscovery" in a Moscow library lacks credibility to me, no original Russian language version of it has been presented to the public, and the bizarre and laughably unbelievable story of Armenians "expunging" all original copies from all libraries everywhere in the World resembles claims produced by many Genocide-denialist organisations within Turkey. Meowy 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can be stated for certainty in anything except mathematics, but unless someone presents evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to not to accept the claim. As for the "story" of the expungement, I don't see what is so laughable about it. I don't think destruction of primary sources is particularly funny. If the claim is spurious, let's see some solid sources to the contrary. The Congress was held, the subject matter cross-checks, and the English translation is in the shelves of both Armenian and Turkish historians. You can obtain a copy of the Armenian original at the ISBN linked above. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The laughable story is produced in a booklet series title "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents" - such a source is not a credible source and cannot be used. Meowy 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for supporting what controversial claim? All that is claimed in relation to the Russian edition is that it exists. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim (that Armenians have been systematically destroying all copies of the book) is being made in a book series titled "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents". Genocide-denialist propaganda cannot be used as a source. This has been well established in the Armenian Genocide article. If you want to take this to arbitration, or ask some administrators, then be my guest. But the outcome will not be in doubt. Meowy 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will remove that reference, leaving the other. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the reference that must be removed, it is the claim made in the reference - the claim that "the fact that remaining copies have been systematically expunged" from public libraries. No such claim seems to be being made in the Weinberg source. In adition, you are removing factual information. The Turkish translation came first. The other translations were made from the Turkish translation, and not made from the original Russian version (if it actually exists) and your removal of the fact that it was published as part of a series titled "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents" removes valid information on the publication's purpose. I am asking you to replace that removed information. Meowy 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All I did was to remove the source, per your request. Now I will rewrite it to quote Weinberg. The Turkish translation did not come first. It came last, actually. It was available first in Armenian, then in Russian, then in English, and perhaps in German (but I'm not sure). I am not going to add a sentence to the effect that the booklet is coincidentally used by people to push marginal POVs. Yes, sure they do, but that can be done with any source by selective quoting. What would be a much more productive thing to do is to source some information about Katchaznouni's motives and relationship with the ARF; information that readers can use to understand the report. Keep the objections coming (and sources, if you have them). --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the publishers info, of the various Turkish-produced publications, the Turkish translation came first and those in the other languages were derived from that Turkish translation, not from the original Russian (which has never been republished, leading to doubts that it actually exists). I.e, you cannot group all the translations together and imply that they are translations of the original, because they are not. The original one in English is an abridgement of a never-seen original. Only the Turkish one is claimed to be the full original. And the context of the Turkish publication, the series title "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents", must be given because it makes clear the purpose of that Turkish re-publication of it. It is not a "coincidental" usage as you call it - that usage is the whole purpose of its re-publication. Something should also be said of why its content makes it appealing as an Armenian-genocide denialist tract. Meowy 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The booklet was well known before Perincek traveled to Russia; look at the dates on the sources! Copies of the original Armenian manuscript, predating the Russian discovery, are also available; ISBN provided on this page. I agree with your last sentence and am thinking of a suitable wording. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The original is not known, that book you cite must be an edition of that abridged version by Derounian - or are you saying that Perincek's story of his rediscovery of it is false? You can't have it both ways! Meowy 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "the original is not known"? Perincek did not strictly reveal any new information, since copies of the Armenian original are in the historical arsenal of certain researchers. All Perincek did was to publicize the booklet. I'll said some material about the ARF's history, and sources for his bio, in due time. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is all that stuff about Perincek in this entry? All that is needed is to say that a Turkish translation of the book, claimed to be based on a Russian original published in 1927 in Tblisi, was recently published in Istanbul. Meowy 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I rewrote the section, the article alleged that Perincek or the Gray Wolves wrote the booklet, so I painted a more complete picture. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging proposal

I propose to merge the articles about the book and the congress. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not - you've simply set up a content fork to give undue weight to an argument which you're failing to support by anything other than original research, when a simple line in the existing article, would cover the view that you propose. You're treading an exceedingly thin line here in continuing to push your POV..._Gb^T/c 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you've completely failed to get consensus for your claims, as well. _Gb^T/c 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need any consensus. Seems I am not talking to the appropriate person. The articles must be merged. --Vitilsky (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do need (a) to verify your claims through (b) reliable sources, and (c) consensus to merge. _Gb^T/c 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky doesn't really want to move the section; he just wants it to be aligned with his POV article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 11:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky wants the section merged into the article. You can change whatever you want in the article about the book, because it seems that you don't care about Hovhannes Katchaznouni's life, just about "his book" and "the ultra super duper secret congress of ARF". This is Wikipedia. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, why don't you be of use and provide some citations about his life, instead of griping about the booklet? I am particularly interested in the book because it is controversial and I want to get the facts straight. I researched it and this is what I found. Don't blame me that the ARF is not transparent in its operations. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, yes. The congress, no (but no article exists for it anyway). Meowy 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of merging? All that's going to happen is that the content here is going to be transplanted there. Anyone who thinks that the other article is going to stay up in its current state is dreaming. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the book has no particular notability beyond that which is connected to its alleged author and the circumstances around his writing it and its reception. So here is the proper place to mention it all; the other article could be removed given that almost all the valid material there should also be here. Meowy 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the book hasn't got any notability, then remove it from the biography, and merge it in another article. That's I think the way. And remember, it IS controversial content that has nothing to do with the biography. --Vitilsky (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It has some notability, notability because of its alleged author. I was sugesting that the article on the book should be removed and any valid info from it moved to here. Meowy 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Read your talk page. --Vitilsky (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PD: To Adoniscik; don't invent sources. I only say that. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, once again you make no sense. That "invented" passage is a quote; search for it! The merge proposal has failed and I have redirected the book back here. Please leave the article alone. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said the merging proposal has failed? You can't say anything. Your invented passage is A COPY of a quote. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put that quote again. If you like to repeat things, several times... --Vitilsky (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus said it, Vitilsky. Everybody except you realizes that your POV fork is just that. Your blind allegiance to the ARF makes you unfit for editing historical articles such as this. Your edits demonstrate a lack of impartiality and knowledge. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are just another racist azeri who does not fit for Wikipedia. Your goal is to make people think that Armenians lie. I arranged the article and the merging is over. Your POV is the fork. Your blind allegiance to Kaynak's propaganda makes you unfit for editing historical articles such as this. Also your azeri origin demonstrate that you don't understand about Armenian history because in your school the teachers may taught propaganda instead of history. --Vitilsky (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I had to report you; continuing this debate is pointless. I have Armenian friends so your assumptions are false. Take a deep breath... the world is not out to get you! --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what you two are on about? Where is the "merged proposal" proposed? It has to have a proper template - I never noticed any. What is the alleged "POV fork"? You both seem to be throwing around terms without them being used in a correct way. And Vitilsky, as I had mentioned to Adoniscik, sources published for Genocide Denial reasons generally can't be used as sources (unless backed up by neutral sources) because of their marginal viewpoints. So why have you reinserted in two locations the "remaining copies have been systematically expunged" claim? Meowy 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky is having a bit of fun again. I had removed that sentence per the previous discussion but he reinserted it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the propagandist azeri... --Vitilsky (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You threat all the time instead of working. Even that article that you revert all the time is not written by you. You are a propagandist of anti-armenian revisionism. You should be warned at your userpage. And a user who every second report everyone but threat the articles at same time. You are a vandalizer too. Your so-called contributions are a messed up mix of reverts reports and edit warrings. I contribute for Spanish wikipedia, and here I only try to make all see the truth. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the article so its with neutral sources. PD: I accuse you of putting several times the article reverted with non-neutral sources and reverting all my edits until now. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The same to your "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [9] [10] [11] [12]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Also I warn you that you need neutral sources for such controversial claims. My version of the article is more or less neutral, and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. To Meowy: I did not just put that "the remaining copies have been systematically expunged", I put that "It is also stated in the preface of the book that "the original was written in Armenian by H. Katchaznouni himself and then translated into Russian and printed in Tblisi in 1927" and also can be read that "remaining copies have been systematically expunged". There is a lot of difference (I talk about the content of the book, with the book as source). This only demonstrates that the book itself contains controversial and denialist content.--Vitilsky (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like taking sides here, but the version you have been adding isn't up to standard - you seem to have just lifted all of the badly-written text from the entry about the book and pasted it in this entry. The "remaining copies have been systematically expunged" claim is a fake; a slight-of-hand-alteration of what seems to be the actual truth (that copies were systematically expunged from ARF libraries). The claim shouldn't be in the text, and just inserting the claim does not indicate that the book contains "denialist content". In fact, to claim that the book does contain "denialist content" is just a POV claim unless backed up with evidence. That it is being used for denialist reasons could be indicated by mentioning that the book was published as part of a series titled "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents". Adoniscik had removed that information, but it should be reinserted. Meowy 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, the only person who questions its existence and authenticity is you. And you have yet to produce one source to back that claim. I lined the article with Armenian sources and you had the gall to dismiss the lot as being "anti-ARF". No source to back that claim, either. Could it be that the problem is your ARF partisanship? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop that paranoia...(¿?) --Vitilsky (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit my version WITHOUT reverting it, yours is specially disruptive with your POV and non-neutral sources. Remember that anyway if you have reliable sources as you call them, it does NOT mean that you can use revisionistic sources. So just put again your sources here. Also, Meowy, I have changed to "remaining copies have been "banned from ARF clubs and libraries for decades afterwards." Greetings, --Vitilsky (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitilsky, your "version" is poorly-written WP:OR. What do you mean by "if you have reliable sources...it does NOT mean that you can use revisionistic sources." I swear I have no clue. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism is banned in Wikipedia. Whether you understood or not, you don't deserve anymore answers from me. I would find my own sources citing and proving it all. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose revisionism. That's why I reverted your edits. When you return with some reliable sources we can continue our discussion. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the book

I understand now. By my sources I found out that the book was written by Derounian, or he just made a full edition of a pamphlet written maybe by Katchaznouni, to encourage an Anti-ARF book (the book "appeared" in 1923). He was a member of the Ramgavar Party, which explains some of the book's parts. And now, the turks use it to support their revisionism and anti-armenian propaganda. I also noted that the original document written or edited by Derounian mentions the massacres and murder of the Armenians in 1915 by the Turks, and the book's turkish edition, edited by Mehmet Perincek and his edition of the original translated by Lale Akalin in 2006, doesn't mention anything about it, so it is only the meticulous selection of tidbits from history that supports their viewpoint. Note also that the publisher who commercializes the Turkish version of the book (Kaynak Press, which is in fact the only version available in the libraries and real or online shops) sells it as part of a book series titled "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents". The turkish edition (look at the preface) even claims that the book edited or written by Derounian was an "unabridged" version of the "original" (I ask myself, which original?). Fallacies. Because also the word "unabridged", which is used by Mehmet Perincek in his edition, is an explanation of the fact that he actually selected the parts he needed from the Derounian's edition or maybe from a Russian translation of it, with the sole intention to use it against the Armenians; he wants the people to think that Derounian's edition is not the "complete" one, when in fact it IS the ONLY original, and the turkish version is in fact a selection of its parts made by a revisionistic turkish editor like Mehmet Perincek. Also the original title is "The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni". Somebody changed it to "The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore" (maybe the turks). PD: I finally want to mention that the fact that he was a Ramgavar is an essential fact when talking about the ban of the book in the ARF meetings. --Vitilsky (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who (besides you, of course) says Derounian wrote it? What are those sources of yours? What do your sources say about Darbinian's and Natali's responses to Katchaznouni? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you need sources. What someone says on Hyeforum isn't a source. Meowy 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Some observations of the words by Vitilsky. Out of curiosity I have been comparing the text of the Derounian version with the Turkish edition in the form of this online version http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/679-dashnagtzoutiun-has-nothing-to-do.html I am assuming that this online version is identical to the text of the printed English-language version of the Turkish publication. If someone has access to a printed copy, it would be good to have this assumption confirmed. However, based on my assumption being correct the folowing can be confirmed.
1/ the English-language "Turkish version" cannot be a direct translation of the Turkish-language "Turkish version" because
2/ almost every word that is in the Derounian version is also in the English-language Turkish version, and it reproduces verbatim the text found in the Derounian version, making only minor changes and typos.
3/ This would seem to imply that either the Deroudian version is a good translation from the original Armenian version and has not changed the meaning of the original in any substantial way, or that the Turkish translator was lazy and only translated the text that is not in the Deroudian version.
4/ Vitilsky's claim that Perincek just selected the parts he needed from the Derounian's edition is false, as is the claim that mention of the massacres of Armenians in 1915 has been removed. As I said, almost all the text is there. However, until a complete version of the Russian-language original is available for inspection, it cannot be known if Perincek was selective or otherwise manipulative in his use of the text that is not in the Derounian version.
5/ The title "The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore" IS the title of the Derounian edition.
Meowy 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

His career as an architect

There is nothing much about this in the article. I have a copy of the 2003 book "Contributions of Armenian Architects in the Caucasus at the end of the 19th Century and start of the 20th Century". It has two pages on Katchaznouni. The book is in Armenian so I can't access it myself - if someone wants to try, I can scan the pages and post them somewhere. Leave a note on my talk page. Meowy 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Marshal Bagramyan kindly agreed to translate the pages. Meowy 21:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The book and it's meaning to Turkish denialists

I suggest you read this. Pay special attention to the bit that says " The Turkish denialists are the ones who talk most about Katchaznouni and ...use texts and falsified translations that have nothing in common with the originals." and "Whatever the Turk denialists present about K is wrong and a lie." The book was released by Kaynak Press as part of a book series titled "The Lie of 'Armenian Genocide' in Armenian Documents". Hope somebody understands that this article is being used as denialist propaganda. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need permission to edit because I'm backed up by facts and a couple of sources, so don't assume anything. Accept the facts. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Proposal to move to Hovhannes Kajaznuni

The current rendering of name suggests he was a Western Armenian, which was not the case. In the Eastern his surname would be rendered Kajaznuni. I assume the Katchaznouni transliteration has caught on due to the Callendar/Carlson English translation. I propose moving the page to the more accurate Hovhannes Kajaznuni. Jackal 06:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Support I think it is a reasonable proposal. The current transliteration, which indeed comes from the Callender/Carlson translation, is a mix of Western Armenian and French. The use of the "t" makes difficult the search within Wikipedia. Armen Ohanian (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Firm Oppose. Katchaznouni is the form found in English-language sources. A simple google search shows a vastly superior number of hits for Katchaznouni as opposed to Kajaznuni (which is a spelling variant derived from Soviet-period spelling reforms in Armenia).

Support. As opposed to the user above, who uses Google search to back up his claims, the spelling is rendered factually correct according to the current transliteration. --92slim (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Katchaznouni is the more common spelling (Katchaznouni 497, Kajaznuni 32) but it seems more historical analysis use Kajaznuni. --Steverci (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The latter is the correct spelling. "Katchaznouni" is a French spelling which not in use by transliteration experts, because it doesn't match the English pronounciation. --92slim (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The latter is not the correct spelling, it is just a letter for letter transliteration of the Soviet-era spelling of his name in Armenian. Katchaznouni was dead by then, murdered by those same Soviets. Nor is Katchaznouni "French spelling" - it or very close variants on it is the spelling used in most (all?) English-language books (can a single English-language source be cited that uses "Kajaznuni"?) and it is the spelling used by contemporary news reports about the first Armenian Republic. The only point of argument is whether perhaps the "t" and "o" should go, whether it should be spelt Kachaznuni. This is the spelling the historian Richard G. Hovannisian uses (most recently in the chapter "The Contest For Kars 1914-1921" in the 2011 book Armenian Kars and Ani.) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"it is just a letter for letter transliteration of the Soviet-era spelling of his name in Armenian" That is the correct spelling of the Armenian language in Armenia, as the letter represented is ջ (j, 0579) and not չ (tch, 057B). --92slim (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I know. --Steverci (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what exactly? What do you understand by "the correct spelling", what is your definition of it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

-uni is the spelling used for Armenian articles in English: Bagratuni, Amatuni, Artsruni, Gnuni, Khorkhoruni, Mandakuni, Pahlavuni, Varazhnuni, Bznuni, Rshtuni, Saharuni --Steverci (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your answer is meaningless. Are not the last three letters of Katchaznouni "-uni"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Kajaznuni per above discussion. --Steverci (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

images for possible use

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Saint_Thaddeus_and_Bartholomew_temple_(Baku) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Viken L. Attarian lecture

I have doubts that this is usable as a citable source. The link given in the article is also dead, but it is all on youtube, in 5 parts, and is in Armenian (over 3 hours of the thing, the audience must have had considerable stamina). Intro is here [20] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Video lectures are essentially primary sources, and Keghart.com is a secondary source; since the content in the website is not self-published and the primary source simply denies revisionist claims, I would consider it to be reliable, but nonetheless, primary sources can be used too as long as there is no WP:OR. As for the book is definitely available in Armenian; I'm not sure when they were republished, by whom or where. It's also definitely available easily in Armenian circles; so all this rubbish claimed by "Holdwater" (a proven anti-Armenian revisionist and Genocide denier who makes up sources) is made up, as is the claim that the book is easily available worldwide (I'm not sure who included that here) - yet there is no proof it's been expunged by any libraries anywhere. There is no need for fact tagging when inline sources are included - the holocaust part is obviously not abridged as it's in the introduction of the book. I understand it's a delicate issue since many of these spurious claims come from "Holdwater", the Turkish Historical Society's anti-Armenian bookshelf and such essentially unreliable sources. --92slim (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added back the excerpt of Derounian, even though he was a fervent anti-Dashnak activist from the US and a Ramgavar member. As far as I understand, he tried to put his own spin on the document - this was used by the Turkish revisionists much later on, when they started to run out of arguments. --92slim (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is usable as it stands now - there is three hours worth of the thing spread out over 5 videos, and it is all in Armenian (not understandable by me or most readers). I doubt that those three hours can be condensed into a line or two, so what has been omitted? Why is Attarian claiming it is a "forgery" - what evidence is presented to support such a strong assertion? In what way has the translation "nothing in common with the original" - it clearly has a great deal in common with the Derounian translation (since it reproduces its text unchanged). Is Attarian also claiming the Derounian translation "has nothing in common with the original"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: He's talking about Perincek's translation, not Derounian's. The fact that the speech is in Armenian is not a problem because the website quotes him in English, so there is no error there. The Perincek "translation" is nothing more than a piece of propaganda, not a real translation. --92slim (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is why the content in this article detailing Attarian's claims is a bit troubling. ALL of Derounian's translation is in Perincek's "translation" - he must have just ocr'd it (since even Derounian's typos are reproduced by Perincek). So what is it that has nothing in common with the original? Does Attarian indicate in his lecture that all of Derounian's translation is reproduced unchanged in Perincek's translation? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Attarian's video lecture is hard to use as a source (impossible for non-Armenian speakers like me). It would be a lot easier if someone on the web had quoted Attarian specifically referencing Perinçek's alleged translation. I'm a little disappointed that 92slim removed all mention of what Perinçek and pro-Turkish nationalists allege the document said and the rebuttal that Perinçek has failed to produce the supposed source of his revisionist "translation". I know some may feel that reproducing these baseless allegations gives them credence, but I think clear rebuttal is the better policy. If we don't address this at all, readers can still find these allegations elsewhere unchallenged. Also, we're always vulnerable to another editor coming in and readding these claims. If they're actually addressed in the article, readers get the full story, and ill-motivated editors can be quickly reverted. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Attarian doesn't dispute that the contents of the book are the same or similar. This is not his point. The point is that Perincek didn't do a new "translation", as Perincek had claimed before. All he did is copy it into Turkish and repackage it in a Genocide denial format, inventing baseless lies as commentary and publishing it with a denialist bookseller. Attarian is not talking about the contents of the book, obviously. The contents are the same, but Perincek claimed they are not. It's Perincek who said the contents aren't the same. Attarian correctly stated that the "Turkish denialist claims are a lie". And obviously they are a complete lie. Kajaznuni simply criticized how the ARF reacted to specific events, he didn't deny that a genocide was committed specifically against every single Ottoman Armenian citizen. @Rupert Clayton: The problem is that when someone (like Perincek) comes up with a claim, the claim has to be backed up. He hasn't backed it up. You cannot prove something that is already untrue. It's impossible. As for what the denialists said about the book, well I mentioned a bit before that they said it's a newly found document and a new translation. Both claims are as far as I understand, untrue, just like Tiptoe has mentioned. Now, perhaps Perincek has "remodeled" some words from the original into Turkish, I can't confirm or corroborate that, would be interesting to know if that's the case. --92slim (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@92slim: Excerpts from Perinçek's supposed translation on a denialist site certainly purported to show significant chunks of text that had been "restored", compared to Callender's translation. I completely agree that this version has not been backed up by any copy of the original text from which it was supposedly translated. I think it's useful to readers to point that out. I understand that a case can be made to avoid giving undue prominence to a fabrication unsubstantiated by any facts. The alternative view is that the best approach to an untruth is a firm rebuttal, (with sources!) Recent political events in the U.S. suggest to me that ignoring untruths does nothing to reduce their popularity. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: You're right, if someone with a knowledge of Turkish could point out the differences or somehow prove that this supposed translation is different from any other versions it would be useful to include in the article. Perincek hasn't been able to certify that a new document has been found and this proves that his motives are murky enough to be akin to historical revisionism. There is a clear proof as to what his motives are that could point to a lack of credibility that his supposed findings entail. It's very suspect that he would find a "new unadulterated version" when copies of the book are indeed available around libraries world wide. TLDR: His original claims were that he found a new different version because the other versions were incomplete and hidden from the public because supposedly Kajaznuni justified the exile and death of a million Armenians. That is untrue when you read even the abridged Deriounian version. I can personally find other version's different from Derounian's and you should be able too. His political affiliation would be interesting to point out, if anyone had this information at hand it would be good to include in the article. --92slim (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It is agreed that the Callender/Derounian translation is an abridged version of the original - abridged as in omitting chunks of the original content rather than condensing down or rewriting sentences. So there is a full version in Armenian in existence somewhere. It, the full version, had not been translated into English prior to Perincek's, so there actually is a new translation even allowing for the fact that Perincek has just reused unchanged all of the Deriounian translation. Simply misusing or misquoting sections of the original version in translation or the Derouninan translation in his (Perincek's) commentary is not producing a "forgery". Perencik's commentary claims cannot be called a "forgery". It would only be a forgery if he were to have deliberately mistranslated parts of the original text. So, I do not see any justification for the "is actually a forgery made by partisan Turkish historians" claim being made in the article. Nor is their such a thing as a "Turkish denialist translation" if the Perincek translation is considered to be accurate. What is needed is content making explicit what use Perencik has been making of the original and then having criticism of or responses to that use. Re Rupert Clayton's "this version has not been backed up by any copy of the original text from which it was supposedly translated. I think it's useful to readers to point that out". It is not disputed that an original text exists. I still have no idea what has filled Attarian's three hour lecture - but unless he or some other source is actually claiming that Perincek has NOT translated the original correctly or fully, such a claim would be OR. Nor, in reference to 92slims final comment, have I seen not sources claiming that Derounian's English translation is inaccurate for the passages he translated. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@92slim:@Tiptoethrutheminefield: So... I'm not putting up "Holdwater" as a reliable source, except as documentation for his own claims (e.g. "pro-Turkish scholars state..."). This page on Holdwater's site presents what is claimed to be a comparative English-language text of Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do with both the Callender/Derounian version (in light green) and inserted text that Holdwater says was translated by Lale Akalin from the 2006 Turkish version (in white).

So what is the claimed source text for the 2006 Turkish edition? That version has an introduction by Perinçek, with his comments on the supposed significance of the new version (also translated on Holdwater's page). Perinçek writes of finding a Russian edition in the Lenin Library in Moscow that "was translated into Turkish by Arif Acaloğlu". So, he is claiming that the 2006 Turkish edition was translated by Acaloğlu from a Russian edition, and Holdwater says that Akalin translated that Turkish version into English.

Confusingly Holdwater's English version says "the missing parts of this condensed booklet are supplied from the edition in Turkish which was translated from the Armenian original." I can only think he misunderstands Perinçek's contention that the Turkish translation has been made from a Russian edition, not an Armenian one.

Why does any of this supposedly matter? Alongside the material where Kajaznuni describes the "holocaust" resulting from the massacres of Armenians, Perinçek also contends that Kajaznuni bitterly criticizes Dashnak strategy and in the process admits that the Dashnaks were allied with Russia, established a dictatorship and massacred Muslims. If the translation were faithful to the original, those parts of the text might back denialist assertions that Armenians in eastern Turkey had joined with Russia, the Ottomans' enemy, and the Ottoman massacres of Armenians were not a genocide but simply a result of suppressing a fifth column. Alternatively, Attarian claims Perinçek's version is a "falsified translation", and if that can be shown then Perinçek's contentions would be baseless. Obviously, the burden of proof for someone claiming to make a "corrected" translation of a controversial document is to show that the new version is faithful. In the absence of that proof (e.g. facsimiles of the Russian or Armenian original with a parallel text of the new Turkish or English translation), I do think we should at least state that Perinçek has not provided that proof. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton:@Tiptoethrutheminefield: It doesn't matter of course because the burden of proof is on Perincek or the Turkish translators. Holdwater's claims are spurious, and he has used anonymity to waive off the responsibility of backing up his claims. The fact of the matter is that Kajaznuni has pointed out that a "holocaust" had taken place against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The Perincek set have made erroneous claims: that it's translated from the Armenian original, instead of the supposed newly found Russian one (both false/unproven so far), that it's difficult to find the Armenian original (false), that Derounian's translation is inaccurate (false; he was an anti-Dashnak and the translation is clearly abridged), and that there was no Genocide because every single Ottoman Armenian civilian was a traitor destined to death in the desert (false), so all their claims are so far bogus. As for Attarian's claim that it's a forgery, I have no knowledge of Turkish and I doubt he has either, so I cannot verify that. Attarian is simply a random academic; in order to sort this out, an actual Armenian original copy would have to be compared with Perincek's "translation". In any case, there is no denying that Armenians created a state and massacred thousands of Muslims, whether by fighting for the Russians during WWI or after they established the First Armenian Republic; that fact is though unrelated to the Genocide as is also corroborated in the book. Just for the record, the Genocide was a plot organized by the Young Turks (who were incidentally mostly not ethnically Turkish, not that it matters much) and thought up meticulously. The Young Turks had considered Armenians a fifth column from some say mid 1914 (when negotiations with the Dashnak failed - note: Dashnaks represented only a very small minority of Armenians), late 1914 (after Enver Pasha lost in the Battle of Sarikamish against the Russian Army), or some say up until February 1915, when Directive 8682 was written by Enver Pasha ordering Armenian males to be laid off from the Ottoman Army and put into labour battalions. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Kajaznuni clearly describes what happened to the Armenians as a "holocaust"

Here it is said that: " In Matthew A. Callender's translation, made directly from the original Armenian text, Kajaznuni clearly describes what happened to the Armenians as a "holocaust" (p. 7):" This is nonsensical. The fact that a translator uses a particular word (in this case: "holocaust") cannot be a proof that the original author used the same word in his original text. In the case of Kajaznuni this is rather improbable. Neither "holocaust" nor "genocide" existed in its nowadays meaning even in English. In theory, Kajaznuni might have used the Armenian expression for the Biblical word, but why should he - it would have brought completely erroneous connotations for the contemporary reader.Rheinvolk (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)