Talk:Temporary Law of Deportation

message: I'm new here, but I came to this page to find out what this law said exactly. The first, second, or third paragraphs do not tell me this. Furthermore the grammar in some of these paragraphs is incorrect, and apparently written by a non-native English speaker. This is fine, per se, but this is an English article and should be edited (for grammar and spelling) by fluent speakers. 
Anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the law itself? Anyone read the law?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.113.53 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a significant rewrite and a major summary in the opening 

message: Genel Müdürlük recently exsist. It is a wrong knowlodge.--3210 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ottoman has not a Göçmenler Genel Müdürlüğü) false knowledge. Correct it. 

message: Fadix 1:	24 November 2006	Not extended to other christians	Resolved: The information Fadix presented was added on 2006-11-23 22:58:09
Fadix 2:	24 November 2006	on mobilisation of the war      	Resolved: From his text; April 24 was the "April 24 circular" which was different than the Tehcir Law. If he wants, he can also present Tehcir Law as background to Enver Pasha article. There is no other law presented in his message. The rest (relationship with Kurds, Battle of Sarikamish and Van Resistance) should be discussed under Armenian Genocide, which links all these issues.
Fadix 3:	25 November 2006	on etymology                    	Resolved: There is no objection in the article for the development of the "etymology concept" which can be developed/argued by Fadix in Tehcir law (Etymology) and after the concept reaches maturity it can be link to this article, with other forms of (Turkish, Arabic, Armenian, etc) forms. His/Hers/Its extensive argumentation brought through the messages would be covered.
By 25 November 2006; there is no dispute presented.
:You are amazing!!! You are using my arguments which justified my claims that there was a dispute. March 2, the deportation started, April 24, a general order of deportation was issued, from which Armenians had to be finally sent in the Zor district, basically in the camps. There was no Tehcir law by then, the Tehcir law followed Envers ciphered telegram to Talaat about the finality of the Armenian evacuation which followed the same month with the so-called law about those opposing the Ottoman war efforts which was then renaimed and simply called the so-called imigration law, few days later after this immigration law was implemented another law entering in application regarding the properties of those evacuated, that law specifically was about the Armenians and the law specifically was called the law of the Armenian abandoned properties. Obviously the dispute exist, since the evacuation of Kurds in Eastern zone opposing the government was following after this law was undoed in 1916. The evacuation of Muslims from Van had nothing to do with the law regarding those opposing the government war efforts, but rather under the law of war mobilisation, to conter Russian advance. You have yet to provide any evidences, since even Kamuran Gurun and various Turkish scholars who disagree with the genocide thesis does't deny that those laws were placed in application against the Armenians, they just justify it by claiming that Armenians backstabbed Turks. Fad (ix) 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this text (such as  backstabbed Turk) is part of the bigger picture, which he is welcomed to present them (with citations) under Armenian Genocide. All his points related to Tehcir Law is covered. --OttomanReference 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still waiting that you document the cases that the Muslims were moved under the Tehcir law. Fad (ix) 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed; The text will cover your argument, until I find the exact chipper number for the Muslim Millet.--OttomanReference 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, ask any skilled Arab about the ethymology of the word Tehcir, it might surprise you, proposing that it is an immigration law is enought to question the validity of this article. Fad (ix) 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unrelated  etymology of the Tehcir does not need to be reanalyzed in this article. This terminology had been scrutinized and published in many articles for the last 8 decades. You can write an article about etymology of Techir that and we can link it to this article. Thanks OttomanReference 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you are mistaken, only has Halacoglu who had no prior credential in Ottoman language called it an immigration law, I have a friend in Turkey who teach history and research Ottoman history who testifies that all the Ottoman dictionnaries he posses none equal that word with immigration, but Halacoglu arrives fart something and poops the term immigration and decades of works are rewritten. Even Turkish government sites now recycle that crap while the Turkish government official translation (the 272 archives) was using the term deportation, in prior and other works it was relocation. So make your pick, Halacoglu is not given more importance than a dot in history, he is considered as a clown and probably even an embarassement for the current Turkish scholars. It was the tehcir law, and tehcir does not mean immigration, no one has ever heard it used that way, including my family members who still speak believe it or not Ottoman Turkish. I got that confirmed by two different Turks, both of which have Ottoman Turkish credentials. Tekil/tehcir doesn't mean anything less than deportation, and this is how it is translated in the majority of works, including the one with the 272 archives released by the Turkish government. Now, the question is, who is Halacoglu to be valid enough to dismiss the rest of scholarship. Afteral, it is the same individual who claims that only 56 thousand Armenians have died, from those less than 10,000 were killed, from Arab bedouens, Kurds and that Armenians have killed 520 thousand Turks. Fad (ix) 06:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I may spoonfeed you there since I doubt you will understand the point I was trying to make after trying to clarify it for you on various occasions. Search for the word tenkil (which is its Ottoman form) in any Ottoman dictionaries, it means to kick someone out, to move someone to a different location as a punishment, and even to annihilate the enemy. It does not mean immigration. So when I say 'this immigration law' or the 'so-called immigration law' I am being sarcastic (and it seems you did not get that part). When the term tenkil/tehcir was used as the law in practice during the martial court, it was clarified that it was used in the context of 'to annihilate the enemy.' So when you try claiming that it was a simple immigration measure under which Muslims and others immigrated, you are shooting on your feets, since even Ottoman records, included those 272 made public archives, and the subsequent laws attached to it (like the abandonned properties of the Armenians), or the order to not extend such laws to others etc; all make it clear that this law was introduced specifically against the Armenians. I doubt I can clarify more than this. Fad (ix) 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And from when is modern Turkish Ottoman Turkish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant Ottoman Turkish/Republican Turkish dictionary. Otherwise we wouldn't need a dictionary now, would we? :) Baristarim 07:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Resolution

message: Due to an ongoing edit war, I have fully protected this page for one week. While the page is protected, please use the talk page here to discuss changes and come to a consensus on what to do with the article. Please stay civil and don't make the argument personal. // Sean William 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean templates or something else? denizTC 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Kaymakli Monastery should not have the template, it might be good to place the template only on the articles the template refers to. If both of the Armenian Genocide and Armenian rebellions are correct in the context, then you guys both should first try and reach consensus there. Without that, an editor might get quite pissed when his/her edits are reverted. Including both of the phrases "Arm. Genocide" and "Arm. rebellions" might be a good combination but I'm not sure you both would agree on that. denizTC 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hetoum Says "Armenian rebellions" This page is not the "Armenian rebellions" page and you should keep your arguments within the subject of the article. Rebellions is an internationally recognized word covering the activities of Armenian Revolutionary parties in the Ottoman Empire. Check the word "revolutionary" and the use of "rebellion", which explains everything. This terminology has been used even by the hardest Armenian National Historians. I know you are new to Armenian history, but try to give time to yourself reading beyond "Burning Tigris". A popular culture book. If you do that you will recognize that citations of that article coming from respected Armenian national historians. I also resent that you have not learn that wikipedia is not a place to wage a national war. There are no sides and no enemies as you think/say "suspect will be dealt in time". Have a nice day. --OttomanReference 13:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: I have reverted the remove of the OR tag on Rights of subject of the law. There is no such reference. A reference of Coding Office, no 54-A/268 is given, unlinked, which could mean anything. In fact it is stated later in the article that following the law's expiry that the effects were ongoing. History shows that these internal deportations had permanent effects, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Interpreting the intent of the law is absolutly Original Research, stating the law is not. Offering an interpretation of the intent of the law, and then using the law itself as a reference is Original Research, as the law does not say "The Intention of this law is.." OR violation.
Additionally all 18 references in this article should be considered for deletion unless they can be backed up with real links, as it requires MAJOR OR to track them down. 24.7.91.244 11:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you bring cited (not the gut feeling) from opposing side that the information presented in the article Techir Law is wrong. Or are you opposing without any specif cited opposition? Thanks. OttomanReference 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The archives codes in your question are open to public. I just choose the last code in the article and added a hard link to it. The interested readers can go the archive web side direct link to library interface regarding these documents]. Thanks. --OttomanReference 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better now, and no this is one issue where I am an outsider. Thank you for the recent edits, I was very concerned by the lack of verifiable references available to readers and editors such as me, who don't know the subject matter. It read like OR. It's still got a lot of problems, but is getting better - thanks. It can't can't hurt to link all such references - all I could see were unlinked numbers purporting to be to a legal statute. Given how hot the related issues are I was highly sceptical. I also like the revision on the Temporary issue - it is now clear, previously it read like an interpretation. 24.7.91.244 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Angelpush your recent edit was reverted because it violated the WP:NPOV rule. You claim that it was cited, well I can cite that George W Bush is a reptile and drinks human blood. Before you revert please discuss your changes and come to consensus. Thank you for understanding. VartanM 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is totally disputed? Which parts are original research. Also, why do you unnecessarily add allegedly etc, and make it POV? Controversial issues should not be at the beginning, it should be in the middle or near the end, just like almost every relevant article on Wikipedia. DenizTC 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority position was rendered irrelevant and placed in a section for Controversial issues. The disputed tags were removed. While the minority position which is a FORK to the Armenian genocide article and is filled with OttomanReference analysis and original research is left passing as an encyclopedic article. I am pretty much sure that Anglepush is OttomanReference, the problem now is what argument will warrant a checkuser. VartanM 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent change

message: What is the problem about pictures??--Qwl (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, they are not relevant to the article, which is about the Tehcir Law and not about killings of Turks. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes its relevant to this article. that pictures show the reason of Tehcir Law.--Qwl (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you offer proof? Black Falcon (Talk) 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Both of those links lead to a "cannot display the webpage" notice. In any case, I am not (at the moment) asking for proof that the pictures are genuine (i.e. that they depict ethnic Turks killed by ethnic Armenians), but rather for evidence that the "pictures show the reason of the Tehcir Law". Also, the Turkish government (inclusive of the Turkish Armed Forces) is a biased source for information related to the Armenian Genocide, and information regarding the genocide taken from Turkish government sources should generally be explicitly attributed to the government (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Black Falcon (Talk) 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure to what you're referring, as I've never said anything about Armenian sources (which can also be biased, but they are not the ones at issue...), nor have I previously mentioned the documents except to say that they lead to "cannot display the webpage" notices. (Are you perhaps confusing me with another editor?) As for writing the deniers point of view, I do not claim that we will not or should not write it: in fact, that point of view is already presented in Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Why do you say that the denialist POV is not presented in the article? It is in the sections titled "Arguments brought forward" and "Assertions brought forward". Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The websites are now available, but as already noted, I am not (at the moment) questioning the authenticity of the images, but rather their relation to this article about the Tehcir Law. Also, as I mentioned, the Turkish government is a biased source for information related to the Armenian Genocide... Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i want to note to the article. how you decide a government document is biased.  you must show realy good documents with references. --Qwl (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The government of Turkey (like the government of Armenia) has a conflict of interest when it comes to issues related to the Armenian Genocide. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: problem is on the define. all sides accept conflicts. one side define as a genocide. one side define as a massacre. one side refuse two of them. problem is on the article name and seeries. why MUST wikipedia accept extremist genocide word. and nobody cant write deniers arguments?? show me NPOV???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwl (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article uses neither "genocide" nor "massacre" in its title; as for the deniers arguments ... again, they are here. To be honest, I don't see how the issue of adequate representation of the denialist position is relevant to the inclusion of the image in this article. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Creating "Killed Turks by Armenians During World War I" article would be just that a POV FORK. As for your pictures, they were copied from a propaganda site, which is not academic to say the least. VartanM (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Document Scanning
*Mesut GÜVENBAŞ
*Erhan KANDEMİR
--Qwl (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the problem about pictures 

message: The name Daunte Culpeppers appears in this article, and as far as I know, he is an American football player, and I'm pretty sure his name should be removed from this article.  I am not 100% sure, so that is why I didn't remove it myself.
Any comments?
75.12.127.104 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism. I've removed it.  --Lambiam 13:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daunte Culpeppers? 

message: Not many readers will know that BOA stands for Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi. Can these references to primary sources, written in a language and script few scholars today can comfortably read and interpret, be considered to offer verifiability? In offering interpretations – and citing a source in support of a claim, other than by way of a literal quotation, constitutes an interpretation – "original research" is bound to slip in. Did the editors who added these citations consult the archives themselves in person? If the citations were copied from some other source, that work should be cited.  --Lambiam 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tehcir Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426035934/http://fakulteler.atauni.edu.tr:80/ermenia/mndty.php?al=3 to http://fakulteler.atauni.edu.tr/ermenia/mndty.php?al=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Tehcir Law →  – The name "Tehcir Law" is hard to understand for English speakers and is used by only  a minority of reliable sources, so is less recognizable to our readers. (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Moved paragraph down to allow RMCD bot to read the timestamp. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Turkey has been notified of this discussion. VR talk 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Armenia has been notified of this discussion. VR talk 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 November 2021