Talk:Adana massacre

message: As we can clearly see from the last picture, the Muslim quarter was also demolished in the incident. Obviously, the Muslims wouldn't destroy their own neighbourhood so it's quite safe to assume that the massacres were mutual between the Christians and Muslims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.85.19 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is completely false. The library of congress speaking about the image says "Ruins of a street in the Christian section of Adana..." Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely false !? There is a MOSQUE in the picture. How is that supposed to be a Christian section. This is ridiculous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.85.19 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Quarter 

message: Holocaust, until now, is broadly used to the Holocaust itself. This is not a good terminology for this case of massacre - or genocide. Lapaz
The word "holocaust" was used for the Armenian Genocide, before the Jewish Genocide.  But I agree, massacre fits better with this article.--Moosh88 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for the use of the word "holocaust" to describe the treatment of the Armenians earlier than its use for the Jews?  As for the word "genocide", I think it was coined in the 1940's. --Macrakis 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably Adana massacres would be better still, as it is much used by scholars and well reflects the moltiplicity of attacks in the region and in the city. --Aldux 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No terms, whether "massacre" or "rebellion," are widely used in scholarly sources since there hasn't been much academic focus on this subject matter. My suggestion is to come up with a more neutral title so as to be inclusive of both Armenian and Turkish deaths. SouthernComfort 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but here we cannot agree. Many articles use the expression massacre, and the same point that there was a revolt is doubtful. As for refusing scholars on the ground that they are Armenian Americans, then no Jew should speak on the holocaust, which is absurd. I am sorry, but McCarthy remains too isolated to accept this view to the level of changing the name to the article. Also, he only cites it briefly, without explaining why it's a revolt and not a massacre, so we can't even use him to have an alternative version, unless he exposes it better elsewhere. But what thing is clear only academic sources should be accepted, ant they must not be in Armenian or Turkish (this is an English wikipedia)--Aldux 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not refuse Armenian scholars, but I find it interesting that those who make this same argument also reject Turkish scholars. That is a blatant double standard. Both sides have their POVs. As for McCarthy, he is an academic source and as far as WP policy goes, he is perfectly fine as he fulfills the conditions of verifiability. Therefore to judge him would be POV. As such, we must come to some compromise since we are not agreed on either "massacre" or "rebellion" as far as the title goes. SouthernComfort 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Thousands of Armenians were locked in schools, hospitals and churches and burned en masse. What is the source of this claim? SouthernComfort 02:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, the fire was observable hundreds feets from there from Battleships stationed on the Sea from various countries. I don't understand what do you mean by non-Armenian or non-Turkish Works to give credence to a position. There has been various reports of the events, Gibbons, Helen Davenport. The Red Rugs of Tarsus: A Woman’s Record of the Armenian Massacre of 1909. New York: The Century Co., 1917 , one example. Raymond H. Kévorkian prepared volume ( LA CILICIE (1909-1921) DES MASSACRES D'ADANA AU MANDAT FRANÇAIS) contains various references from neutral parties, you will find from it loads of references on the event, including Ottoman government official statistics claiming a little over 600 Muslim deaths and 20,000 Christian deaths, mostly Armenians. There has been also works published of memoirs of those who saw the burning. Fad (ix) 03:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims

message: Are the dates in the article on the Western calendar or the Rumi calendar? howcheng  {chat} 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Assyrian deaths are included in the total death toll estimates, which also includes Armenian dead (est 5,000-25,000) and the Muslim deaths, ( est. 1,000-2,000). They are not separate, the source used already mentions this. But the realization of this can take a while. DragonTiger23 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian deaths not separate from total death toll 

message: I came across this site on the massacre, which clearly states 250 Greeks were also victims of the massacre. 
https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/default/files/Armenian_Genocide_ch3_0.pdf
Why does this page only mention the Armenian and Assyrians deaths? Elias Antonius (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Greeks and Assyrians.Nocturnal781 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Greek victims forgotten? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adana massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629160635/http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/campus/reslib.nsf/a2a27112da97de9b85256f7100617ec7/fce9a8ae241cbce185256f8d006471a0/$FILE/AG%20Chapter%203.pdf to http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/campus/reslib.nsf/a2a27112da97de9b85256f7100617ec7/fce9a8ae241cbce185256f8d006471a0/$FILE/AG%20Chapter%203.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anybody seriously contend that this article has a neutral POV? Many of the quotes, such as from Dadrian, are mostly about demonizing the Turks and have little factual value. Some of the most flamboyant statements are without sources.
For example, this entire paragraph:
Having long endured so-called dhimmi status, and having suffered the brutality and oppression of Hamidian leadership since 1876, the Armenians in Cilicia perceived the nascent Young Turk government as a godsend. With Christians now being granted the right to arm themselves and form politically significant groups, it was not long before Abdul Hamid loyalists, themselves acculturated into the system that had perpetrated the Hamidian massacres of the 1890s, came to view the empowerment of the Christians as coming at their expense.[citation needed]
is full of biased language – and no evidence.
Likewise "Historians question the factuality of the Turkish claims of an "Armenian rampage" due to the simple fact that if the Armenians had been the aggressors, significantly higher number of Turks would have been killed." What historians? Mcdruid (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rife with POV