Talk:Adana massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim Quarter[edit]

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 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dispute[edit]

It appears that Coolcat has edited the page to add factual accuracy dispute comment onto this page without giving a comment as to why. Nor any effort to correct or verify the articly seems to have been taken. There are none of his/her opinions on the talk page neither. Can he post a comment related to this situation. Otherwise if no evidence can be given to the validity of factual accuracy dispute then it should be removed. Simply commenting it is disputed isn't enough. Meok 08:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however I am very busy with Armenian Genocide. This article will be discussed after Armenian Genocide is resolved, this material was moved form Armenian Genocide. One problem at a time. -- Cat chi? 09:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given. A "I will do it later" does not suffice. Particularly as the dispute related to the Armenian Genocide will likely and has taken a long time. Your work with that page does not have an end time in sight Meok 12:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If there are no references or sources why are you removing the "factual accuracy dispute" comment. Isn't it unfair? One can enter a fictitous but controversial event into Wikipedia but does not give any references, and there will not be any notice regarding the accurateness of the article, it is totally unfair. We are talking about "holocaust". This is a serious accusation. You cannot simply say that "Well until then perhaps the accuracy dispute should be removed. Evidence, reasons as to why an accuracy dispute should be given." This is not a game. I propose the opposite with your logic: Well until any references and serious sources are given "factual accuracy dispute" should stay. Cansın 7.49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
i am planning to put the factual accuracy notice back, since i cannot see any serious objections to cansin's explanation. in case i forget it, anyone is welcome to do it.Fethi 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i have done it.Fethi 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Factual accuracy notice do not fit here. The position presented in that article exist, factual accuracy notice is used when there is a misrepresentation of a position. The POV notice is what I think you wanted to add. When the other version is not presented, or not as it should, it is a POV and not a factual accuracy notice. Once I have time, I will be working on this article. Regards. Fadix 17:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adana rebellion?[edit]

This doesn't conform to name conventions, what is called Adana massacre is about the death of at least 17 thousand Armenians(according to Ottoman sources) to 35 thousands according to other sources(such as Rummel figures). This is what this article covers, deaths of people can not be called rebellion. While the deaths of hundreds in Khojali in its entry is called massacre, tragedy and even genocide, I don't see anything called 'rebellion' or any other positions even thought the position vehiculed on that pages is more controversial in the academic world than the qualification of massacre in the cases of Adana. I don't see any mention of rebellion for the entry about Sebrenisca massacres while the Adana massacre costed two times more lives. Fad (ix) 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 thousand Armenians, may i ask you for Ottoman resouces than showes the figure ? I have seen that the number of casulties were around 1500, not 17.000.
For anyone interested, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey website contains many revisionist documents apparently targeted at American audiences (one of them actually recalls American slavery to contextualize the events). I have cited one of these documents at the bottom of the article, and specified the page number that alleges Armenian aggression culminated in "17,000" Armenian deaths against fewer than 2,000 Turkish deaths. Your number of casualties may (correctly) refer to Adana the city rather than Adana the Province.
Incidently, the clash in the city of Adana was indeed a mutual struggle, though I am not certain that it could rightly be called a "rebellion", as it was not a struggle between the government and Armenians but rather a struggle between Christians and Muslims---the government was only very peripherally involved, largely in protecting foreigners. Even given the loosest of interpretations of the events themselves, without drawing any conclusions about which side "started it" in Adana, can one mob "rebel" against another?
In any case, there may be some confusion arising from the phrase, "Adana massacre", because Adana is both a province and a city within the province. The massacre occurred throughout Adana province, and indeed what occurred within Adana the city seems to be a very different story than the subsequent slaughters throughout the province.DBaba 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before. We can't have another article called Adana rebellion because that would be a blatant POV fork. SouthernComfort 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think you understand name conventions. Let me repeat. Quantum mechanic and Super String theory are two different interpretation of the physical reality, but yet in the entry about Quantum mechanic you won't find any mention of 'also called Super String.' This entry is a main, regarding the death of about 20,000, it is not about what is called Adana rebellion, the rebellion stand for a position that maintains that the Armenians of Adana rebelled and not the death of those same Armenians. Also, there is even less justification to adding something such than adding 'also called Super String' in an article about Quantum mechanic because the also called is only used when it is a term which is used in parallel and not when it threats another thing. Now, who calls the deaths in Adana 'Adana rebellion?' Even McCarthy doesn't do so, what he does is that he justifies those deaths by claiming rebellion, but rebellion is not a parallel term for those deaths which the article is supposed to threat. That there was a claim for rebellion in Adana has a place in the article, but the Adana deaths are not also called 'Adana rebellion,' rebellion is the justification of the circunstance of those deaths, which is a different thing.
Well, I disagree because the inevitable result of this will be another article called "Adana rebellion" which will principally focus on the Turkish POV. Both these articles will end up as POV forks. If everyone is alright with that (despite it being against WP guidelines, then there's not much else I can say. But the fact remains that McCarthy and the Turkish writers do not refer to this whole series of events as a "massacre" but "rebellion." SouthernComfort 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can count on my fingers the number of enought notable works that sibstitute to the massacre the term rebellion to refer to the deaths, and we don't have to creat another article, nothing prevent us to say in the article that the Turkish position places importances on a rebellion to explain those deaths, the thing here is that there artile is about the death and if we respect name conventions we will name it such. Fad (ix) 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you're right (that another article won't be started). SouthernComfort 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


At that time , armenians were attacting turkish people. And they were attacking defendless innocent people. they killed pregnant woman and opened her belly just for fun to check whether baby is male or female.

Do you want me to give another story? I have many. There was a guy and his neithbor was armenian. At that time, armenians captured him and they tied him to a tree. And they started to cut his children's ear. They forced him to eat ears of his children. They didn't killed this guy. Because they wanted him to suffer by thinking his dead childrens.

In adana, people ascaped to mountains to survive because armenians were cutting them.

Keep reading those propaganda sites, if you have real references please state them other wise stop making stupid comments like "Armenian killed pregnant womans" Nareklm 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an example of stories.. Perhaps it gives an idea how Armenians were devil..
Yeah im not even going to bother with you guys, anyone can say that its disrespectful, ignorant, racist, hateful, therefore its BS. Nareklm 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to remind that most of the Armenian "evidence" for the "genocide" also comes from "survivors' stories". They are not written in broken english, though. They are very expertly packaged. This difference aside, they are not much different from the above two stories. You can find many propaganda sites where you can read truckloads of them. They are all true, of course, as they are told by nice christian white armenians, not barbaric moslem bloodthirsty dark turks. (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC) mehmet[reply]

You got that right. Being a Turk means you are bloodthirsty by nature but it's not your fault really, you were simply born that way ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ny Times article disproves massacre claim[edit]

Please, please, please!! before you revert the article, read the NY Times article that I provided. If you are in doubt of it's authenticity, which I am sure you will claim as being fake, ask a moderator before you do it. I don't want to engage in edit war when my source is reliable as I spent time researching it. If you have another source that disputes it, please put alongside mine, unless you can completely falsefy mine then you can provide that source (and I don't mean something from wikipedia, armeniapedia, or an armenian source, something on the same caliber as NY Times). Thanks. --Oguz1 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (moved to bottom -- --Macrakis 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, Oguz1. Oh no no no no no. You've quoted German Ambassador Bernstorff in response to American requests that he use his influence to stop the killing of Armenians. And you've shamelessly cherrypicked this from among hundreds of articles elaborating (or alleging) Turkish atrocities.
I think if we concentrate really really hard, Oguz, you and I can think of a reason why a German Ambassador would try to justify Ottoman barbarism in 1915.DBaba 10:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why it is called Adana Massacre but, a Zeitun Resistance (1895) of an Armenian victory(!) when killed more than 20,000 Ottomans.SEY01 11:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sey, destroying towns, killing civilians and stealing their possessions, this isn't the same thing as "resistance". What "Adana Massacre" represents is what most of the human population of the planet Earth witnessed--I don't care about what Armenians and Turks think happened.
These discussion pages are particularly instructive, I must say. Overzealous Armenian politicking joined by hateful outbursts of Turkish nationalism: the same old Anatolian demons. Wading through the discursive morasses behind every Wikipedia page gives me a too visceral sense of just how evil is born.DBaba 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians won't reverse history![edit]

I live in Adana - Turkey and I know history of my city. My grandparents were living during WW1 and they told me truth. French Army occupied Adana during WW1. French wanted to defeat Ottomans and they associated with Armenians which want to found an independent national country. Frenchs gave to Armenian gangs weapon and they attacked Turkish villages and towns, killed villagers and burned them in ovens like Nazi's. I saw a huge oven between Adana City and Tarsus Town and with genetic tests it certified there were Turks burned there. One year ago near a friend of mine's house a very old Armenian house demolished and under the house police found many old weapons. Armenians won't reverse history. Humanity will understand their lies and damn their fascism. Please look at: Khojaly Massacre and Chronology of Armenian Terrorism

Have you not noticed that this article is wholly sourced to the New York Times and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey? The French occupied Adana in 1919, not 1909. This information isn't coming from Armenians, this is the product of hundreds of American witnesses, at least a couple of whom died in anti-Christian violence. I don't think you even understand the Turkish government's position on these events. This text comes directly from the website of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey:
Now, is it not interesting that this rampage of pillaging and death, apparently the evil whim of the wealthy Christian minority, is recorded in modern Turkish textbooks as an Armenian aggression in which Armenians were nine times more likely to perish? Perhaps you should talk to your grandparents about that. In fact, by 1919, most of the world's Armenians had been destroyed.
Incidentally, Armenians are not excluded from "humanity", as your comments seem to indicate. Just a little nitpick, that. :o)DBaba 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about WW1 did you read carefully?? Of course WW1 began at 1914, after 1909. I know only !that! Armenians left Adana at 1922 with French Army because they cooperated with French Army and they betrayed their citizens. And after they left city at 1922, my grandparents moved to an empty Armenian house and my grandfather still living there. Another proof for Armenian being at Adana in 1919 is murder of Adana Mayor by an Armenian at 1919 and after this a French had been mayor to the city.
And please show me where can I read smth. about this subject at Turkish Grand National Assembly website. At this subject's external links part I found links but they redirected to general English source of Assembly website, I can't find anything related to this subject there, only I can find there sources for a genocide to Turks by Armenians. Thanks for your interest.. KhaLduNTR 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's footnotes specify the document and the page number of the article's quote. The problem with Turkish sources, is that they're completely undermined by nationalism and racism, and the document is only really useful to demonstrate how incomprehensible and senseless modern Turkish scholarship is on the subject. Again, "Armenian gangs" cannot attack and destroy a province, dying at 9 times the frequency of their victims; that is absolutely preposterous, a tactless fabrication. And as the article states, Armenians were murdered, and Armenians witnessed "Muslims" killing Armenians. I'm sorry if you don't want to know that, but this was big news in the West, and all over the newspapers, which are linked to at bottom so that you can go read the 1909 New York Times for yourself. If your grandparents don't know that, then ask yourself, What else don't they know?

Because you said that this article was "Armenians" trying to "reverse history", I took it to mean that you were talking about the article? Are you saying the article is true, but 1915 was no genocide? This talk page is about the 1909 Adana massacre, not WWI or any other issue. It is a terribly sad thing that occurred in this place, for everyone involved; unfortunately, it sounds like you're most interested in defending your grandparents, which is not an argument I'd savor engaging you in. I'm sure your grandparents are wonderful people... Mine were too...DBaba 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attack to Armenians, it was an attack to non-muslims. Adana Massacre really happened, but you can't call it a part of Armenian Genocide. It was a religious movement. Ogly95 (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Assyrian deaths not separate from total death toll[edit]

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)[reply]

Why are Greek victims forgotten?[edit]

I came across this site on the massacre, which clearly states 250 Greeks were also victims of the massacre.

Why does this page only mention the Armenian and Assyrians deaths? Elias Antonius (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Greeks and Assyrians.Nocturnal781 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rife with POV[edit]

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)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Utku, please stop with the original research and the editorializing. Just because a minaret can be seen in the background, it doesn't mean that this street was shared with the Muslim section of the town. The reference, that you disregard, clearly refers to a street in the Christian section (i will add the quote); for all we know, the minaret at the very end of the street could simply indicate the beginning of the Muslim section, or it could even be a remnant of previous inhabitants. In any case, there is no source to support your claim(s).

As for Karpat (1985), he doesn't claim that the Adana massacre cannot be verified because of those Ottoman statistics; that is your own synthesis and editorializing. If not, add the quote that supports the claim, because i couldn't find it. Even though i have forwarded you to WP:SYNTHESIS multiple times in the past, it appears you still haven't read it, or at the very least understood it. In short:

  • Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.

Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific papers are not written to conveniently fit Wikipedia articles. At least that is what I think. Of course users and admins who have connections with some scholars might influence some papers to fit the Wikipedia articles. The source indeed inaccurately mentions it as Christian section. However if we keep it such we will be a part of misinformation campaign which I would want to avoid and which I would expect other users who value ethics to do so too. I also would like to point out you using 2 reverts to conveniently make it harder for anyone else to undo it does not look like WP:Goodfaith. Moreover we can see you have followed up on nearly all of my edits in Greece except in Agrafa where another user whom you are in so so many articles together have reverted. I am sure you and this user is also definitely not in cahoots. So now you are following me here which again shows WP:TEND. Utku Öziz (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Utku Öziz I can't really follow your claim that the decline of the Assyrian population can not be verified as in the source Adana incidents, Assyrians do not even appear. Then the rest was a bit weird as we know how academics who do not follow the Government POV are treated. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not decline of the Assyrian population in the registrars. Moreover the Assyrian death toll claim is challenged by a government commissioner the Babikyan Efendi which I have added. There is a net increase, a 28 percent increase of Assyrians which is more than 10 times the Vilayet average. The source I added does not specify for Assyrians as it is not written to fit Wikipedia articles and the claims used within them. Moreover, I have added 2 more scholarly sources and rephrased the article. Some articles might be written on the other hand to fit Wikipedia articles if Wikipedians are in cahoots with some researchers. Interestingly some users as you can see work and edit as if they are like workers of a government or an organization. Utku Öziz (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's just go with the assumed growth of the population in Adana between 1906 and 1914 which you claim proves that there were not killed between 20'000-25.000 Armenians. Beyrouth had a growth of about 300'000 and Erzurum of ca. 140'000 in the same timespan in which Adana grew only 11'000. There are other provinces that have figures with a smaller or similar raise or fall, but this also doesn't matter since neither figure mentions Armenians on page 190 from Karpat. If a source doesn't mention Armenians, it is not valid for demographic information on Armenians and therefore WP:OR. I have double checked a source twice and both times it was unverifiable. I again assume good faith and invite you to adapt it to a source for the text you want to include. If not, I revert it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we let go of statistical changes when such huge unverifiable claims are made? Do we let go in Wikipedia such facts because it does not fit the POV of some researchers? Because in life people with various political agendas or ideologies can make claims to other peoples or organization what is important is to very them. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a Propaganda tool for users who have such agendas. Of course if such users also collaborate massively then it becomes a highly biased platform and loses its value.
You are looking at the wrong pages that is why. I did not thus cite page 190 which shows the net gain. You need to compare the figures. Use 162-165 for 1906/7 Adana and 172-173 for 1914 Adana. Yes there is various growth in various provinces that is how life is everywhere and how it is now in most of the world. Apparently you would like to use that to delete the population facts and you have mentioned about a certain Government POV and claimed that the sources I have added are so? Do you claim that? Even though the sources I add are from various Universities one being not even in the same country. This I believe shows that you have an anti-government or in this case anti-state sentiment which results in you being WP:TEND. Do you claim that the sources I add are in cahoots? However Adana's Muslim Population growth is percentage-wise far lower than its Armenian and Assyrians. I see that you are pointing out to this reality. Utku Öziz (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]