Talk:Prosecution of Ottoman war criminals after World War I

message: 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)
replies: text: I have made a number of changes to the article in order that it be more accurate and not make entirely ficticious claims. However, the title of the article and the subject itself is still far more fiction then fact. As such I strongly suggest that the article be deleated as it serves no purpose except to confuse and make false claims and present false history. Wikipedia has no use for such garbage.--THOTH 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of Malta Tribunals

message: 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)
replies: text: THOTH  claims "it is a fiction" The Great "Armenian Historian" has a extensive section in his book "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus" which extensively explains this pretext of "international trials" and their results. The (a) collection of events and (b) interrogations in Malta to build the "international case" exits. There is an article that explains the memories of Bogazlayan Mehmet Bey which ended in this "very interesting" set of events which explain "Armenian Relocation and the Trial of Governor of Bogazlayan Mehmet Bey." These set of events which fits to normal prosecution procedure: events "arrest of people", moving them to "Malta jails", and "collection of events", "perform analysis on the collected events" and discussions regarding the consequences and then "Suspension of Persecution" is explained in this article "The Malta Tribunals". These are not fictions. The article has a section of "Aftermath" which aims to collect opinions regarding why these events failed to produce desired results. (1) The events are real and covered by Armenian and Turkish historians (2) the terminology is also not original which An Armenian Fadix labeled the trials at "[]" in Revision as of 22:04, 2 March 2006. And developed a discussion tread as "The_Real_Malta_Tribunal" . Which you have been following these edits from the same period. (3) The concept is extensively discussed by you and your friends in  as MarshallBagramyan says """This has been discussed before:  which includes on the Blue Book, and here  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? """ I hope you do not claim that these "discussions are based on fictional events". The article summarized what historians worked on and what was perceived "by wikipedians" as significant (see the discusions  ) to give their time which was not perceived by them as """Again you have suceeded wasting our time"" . Thanks --OttomanReference 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References are to the Ottoman Post War military tribunals which were held in various parts of Anatolia and Istanbul - none were held in Malta to my knowledge - nor did the British establish any mechanism for prosecution of Turkish detainees held at Malta after the war. Simply discussing or considering prosecution of individuals does not equate to trials. This subject and your contentions are pure fiction and nothing else. If I contemplated punching you out and even talked with someone about my desire to do so would you say that I could be tried for having attacked you? No. There was no attack - just as there were no trials. I strongly recommend that this article be deleated as there is no substance to it. The Post War Ottoman Military Tribunals are introduced and discussed in the Armenain Genocide article. Perhaps you would recommend that we exapand that discussion as these trials and the trial of Solomon Telerhian for the murder of Talat in Berlin in 1921 are the only trials of relevance that I am aware of that concern perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Perhaps you are referring to some trials held on Malta for fisherman who exeeded their quota of fish - in any event to introduce and discuss trials as an article in Wikipedia there actually have to be such trials to begin with.--THOTH 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose we call the article - "Trials of Ottoman detainees held in Tahiti". Or maybe "the Further adventures of Danial Webster as he shows them Ottoman Scoundrals a thing or two about the Law and American Justice!" etc --THOTH 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the Article

message: 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)
replies: text: I propose we call the article - "Trials of Ottoman detainees held in Tahiti". Or maybe "the Further adventures of Danial Webster as he shows them Ottoman Scoundrals a thing or two about the Law and American Justice!" etc --THOTH 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with the "name Malta" in the title"

message: 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)
replies: text: Please provide us with a list of trial dates with defendents, presiding judges, prosecutors, evidence presented and verdits - and so on and so forth - then we can talk. Until then you have no trials. BTW - all of your references to discussions of "Malta Tribunals" from Armenian Genocide/Fadix talk pages are to citations that specifically make and back the claim that such trials did not exist. As for a "Famous Armenian Historian" refering to such - I don't know what you are talking about here - but I can only imagine that he - likewise - is dismissing such ficticious claims. Enough of this already - OK.--THOTH 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think THOTH should present his citation for his claim "no effort what so ever" as given the fact: "Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required the Ottoman Empire, "to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres" This article in an international PEACE TREATY informs us that there is a conviction for the international trials (convicts were in the control of the Allied Forces, which makes this international I guess) which Ottoman Empire did "hand over to the Allied Powers" with Malta exiles. This is a very strong position that "There was an effort"  Before THOTH edited the introduction section the first paragraph clearly states "MALTA TRIALS did not go to PERSECUTION stage." These facts explain that THOTH's statement is totally wrong "no effort what so ever." However the rest of the stages  are not LESS important than the prosecution. Which This articles tries to explain. These events are real THOTH. THOTH I really do not understand the position which you want to add to the article that is not in the article. THANKS--OttomanReference 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were no trials - and you even admit this - then how could there be an article titled "Malta Tribunals" etc? Answer - there cannot be. I covered the logic of this above in the discussion that even if I tell someone I would like to hit you - until I do it - it can't be said to have occured. Likewise I (and others - in past Armenian Genocide talk pages that you reference) have already discussed and presented the facts in regards to the lack of any attempt to move forward for any trials (there is even no blueprint to describe what the trials would be about, how they would be arranged for, who would preside, what law would be applied - etc) - none of this. And beyond a single documented inquirey by Geddes - there was no attempt - nor does there exist any evidence for any attempt - on the part of the British or anyone else - to specifically seek or accumulate evidence in preperation for any trial. So - non issue. There were no other "stages" of prosecution - nothing of this nature happened whatsoever - and the onus is on you to document such as I have requested - not for me to proove it didn't occur. This would be like asking me to prove that the Chinese have not landed men on the moon - if you are cliaming that they did - then you must present the proof.--THOTH 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down take it step by step. Your argument is limited, even though explained before. There are "many steps" in a trial. There are trials which parties agree (under the judge control) before the trial reaches its final PERSECUTION stage. These are also trials as the documentation regarding all other stages (arrest, evidence, exchanges, etc) stay within the archive of the corresponding offices with the same code or title given at the beginning. The information in the article is cited. Both Turkish and Armenian. The proof of this process is in the "Article" given by an Armenain historian. Thanks OttomanReference 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that it changes anything (because there were no trials, there was no organization for trials, there was no investigations to establish evidence - none of that) - but please - by all means - I am curious about your alledged quote proving something to the contary by some A"rmenian Historian". BTW - I am still seriously contemplating hitting you...can we yet say that I have done so? Can we even say that I have done anything at all to really prepare to do so?--THOTH 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW - just curious - do you suppose that we could craft an article for Wikipedia called - Guantanamo Tribunals - concerning the trials of prisoners held there from the Afghan war? I imagine that someone has contemplated trials - so can we write and article about these (non-existant) tribunals and then talk about how since there were no verditcs and no sentencing etc - then this somehow proves that these detainees are innocent? Because that is what they are - detainees. ANd those held on Malta were even more so. Sevrees and other prounouncemtns by the Entente powers spoke to the collective guilt of the Turks for the Armenian atrocities...but there was no legal international framwork for prosecution - this was all a new thing - and regardless by this time the Entente powers were politically going thier own way - and becaoming rivals - and there was little likelyhood of any International effort to try and convict these men. There was hope that through Sevres and the partictioning of Anatolia that the Turks would be punished by loss of territory/soveriegnty - but even this proved a futiel hope in light of the rise of Turkish Nationalist power. So justice was not served. ANd this is the story - not your made up "Malta Tribunals" that never existed.--THOTH 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required an international trial. There is no International peace treaty regarding Guantanamo prisoners. That is the main difference you do not want to hear. --OttomanReference 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong - article 230 required the Ottoman Government to turn over all officials involved in the Armenian massacres. It did not specify trials. Even if it had done so - saying such does not mean that such a thing occured. Again - I may be planning to hit you - but until I do it - one can not say tht I had done so - only that I may have been contemplating such at a point in time. BTW Sevres (completed in August 1920) never was ratified or implemented.--THOTH 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is what article 230 of Sevres Treaty says "ARTICLE 230. The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1, 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such tribunal. In the event of the League of Nations having created in sufficient time a tribunal competent to deal with the said massacres, the Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to bring the accused persons mentioned above before such tribunal, and the Turkish Government undertakes equally to recognise such tribunal." This says that the Allied Powers reserve the right to set up a Tribunal or that the Leaugue of Nations might do so - however to my knowledge no such Tribunals were ever established. If you have any information which suggests the existance of such tribunals then I suggest that now is the time to supply it. Malta was strictly a holding place for detainees. Again - if you have any evidence of actual trials held on Malta please supply such...--THOTH 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: THOTH Please, your edits are not cited. I would appreciate, if you bring your arguments with citations. I would like to have a session with you about "Can we even say" or "I have done anything" kind of your personal ideas of yours, but I think these can wait for later issues that you will rise. Have a nice day. Thanks --OttomanReference 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point. And I am not interested. This article is sure to be deleated. And you obviously cannot comprhend these issues and understand what is important and real. "Discussing" anything with you is obviously a tremendous waste of time.--THOTH 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "copy edit" of Toth [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malta_Tribunals&diff=127436500&oldid=127423141] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I several times stated that I used Dadrian's book as a source - this should be clear. You have reverted my edits and re-instated a quote from Dadrian that does not exist as at no point in Dadrian's work does he even so much as mentions any "Malta Tribunal(s)" - thus you are manipulating his words and protraying something falsely - much as this whole (so-called) article does.--THOTH 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concentrate THOTH; there is a very clear citation format. Do not take it personal. I'm asking you to give exact citation of the sentences or paragrafs that you used to reach these arguments. They are listed one by one for you just at the top of the page. Just keep your Focus... OttomanReference 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non-sourced paragraph introduced by [[User:THOTH|THOTH]]

message: 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)
replies: text: There is a very clear citation format. Give exact citation of the sentences or paragraphs that you used to reach these arguments. Which pages and sentences are the source that you use (sentence by sentence) in your arguments. Just keep your Focus... OttomanReference 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Where does it say "The British never requested incriminating documentation" give us citation of this sentenceOttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Where does it say "The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain" give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Where does it say "British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution" give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Where does it say "The Allies had mountains of documents relatedto the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals." give us citation of this sentence OttomanReference 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All quotes from Akcam are on p 358 as stated.--THOTH 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to help you, SO: Are these your sentences? OR Are these quotes? Which in that case you should have exactly copied authors text from the source and quoted them. If you exactly copied from the source are they refer to secondary sources? What evidence is given to validate these ideas? Are these quotes have referenced to a primary source, such as an official British document? You need to give this information so that we can verify the correct information. Right at this moment we do not know if you quote the specific paragraph or you come up with these sentences. Thanks OttomanReference 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive coverage of failed attempts at securing justice against Turks responsible for the Armenian genocide also exists in Tanar Akcam's book - ''A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is a bad faith to open a Afd and not even involve with the discussions. All the questions you present here is already answered during the Afd. This behavior of yours undermines the peoples good faith. All the questions you bring over and over again are answered. It is impossible to communicate to you when you ignore the given answers and continue on with your ideology. You do not even give your time and read the article. Your oppositions are theoretical and based on your POV. Including the differences between this article and Malta Exiles. You may be taking this non seriously, but for a lot of people wikipedia is not a "joke". You are welcome to read the discussions and answers given at the Afd. Thnsk --OttomanReference 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is sourced. Every bit of this information is coming from respected sources. Even "Armenian state department" had a page that covers this topic. Your idea that this content does not deserve its article is many times falsified by different Armenian historians which spend their time to generate information which IS CITED IN this article. The article uses so many different sources to build its validity and you claim; "insignificant". All these arguments are presented ar Afd but have you changed your position on removing this article. No, you did not. Besides, do you really know the topic? You have not shown the proof (by adding info) to the article that you are capable of understanding the issue. It is very normal for a person which did not brought single source to claim "only complicates matters for the worse." You try to remove the content (instead of learning and engaging) which is formed by other peoples efforts. This is disrespectful. The sad part is; This article has a counterpart at Armenian state department. Are you going to ask them to remove their page too? This is not the first time that you present this behavior as you pointed out. People have faced with you, including me, about your biased, non sourced edits. Thnks. --OttomanReference 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One fork after another

message: 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)
replies: text: There is some info here https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2012-04-19/news/turkeys-eu-minister-judge-giovanni-bonello-and-the-armenian-genocide-claim-about-malta-trials-is-nonsense-308828/
"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)
thread_title:  This article does not make sense 

message: 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)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you can provide a source material and indicate which line in this article needs fixing. Vmelkon (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijacked Wikipedia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy edit 1 April 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy edit 2 April 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where to from here? 

message: 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:
*FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921.
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).
--92slim (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telegraphs