Talk:Hemshin people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Turkish politicians

I will put back the photographs of three notable Hamshenis of Turkish politics in the info-box, as it goes for most info-boxes. I see that there has been source problems. I will shift the photograph of the woman to some other place in the article. Also, please do not erase talk page stuff, and I am not sure that the purpose of a wikipedia article's talk page is to direct readers to yahoo discussion groups. I had put a mention of this article in the page for the town of Hemşin, the world may not look the same way from there. Cretanforever.

I say leave the infobox as it is. I think it's just better to allow the photograph of the Hamsheni woman to remain in the article as she best represents the ethnic group. To me, if we just have Turkish politicians in the infobox who are partly Hamsheni or of Hamsheni descent then we really aren't really representing that ethnic group accurately. Besides, the articles for the Turkmen and the Uyghurs only have one image representative of their ethnic groups. Why can't this be the same with the Hamshenis?

I removed the comment regarding the ASALA above because it was vandalism. The user (153.2.247.30) who placed it on this talk page has been cited earlier for making POV statements in other articles such as in the University of Texas at Austin article. I removed the statement on the Hamsheni Yahoo group as well. I don't believe that advertising of any kind is allowed on Wikipedia, but I checked the background of the anon who wrote that piece as well. This user (193.255.230.227) was also cited for vandalism. -- Clevelander 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We can remove Mesut Yılmaz, whose Hamsheni descent is rather distant and very partial anyway, we can the put the lady in the middle of the infobox, and Ahmet Tevfik İleri and Murat Karayalçın to the right and left. Especially İleri is a favorite son who made it to the top for most Hamshenis, and he has rendered great services to Turkey. I have nothing against the folk dress and the pastoral landscape but the reader should not be left under the impression that that's what Hamshenis are all about. They live in a society and many are urbanized. I also have photographs of bagpipe (tulum) players that I will add and I will develop Hemşin page with a stress on the fantastic landscape. Regards. Cretanforever

Okay, I'll agree to that. I shall re-add Karayalçın and İleri immediately. -- Clevelander 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamshenis in Russia

"Recently, most of the Muslim Hamshenis in Russia who were forcibly moved by Stalin to Kazakhstan, wish to have their own cultural organization in the Krasnodar Krai in Russia. The action was continously denied by Krasnodar officials and has prompted an organization of their co-ethnics and co-religionists in Armenia itself to appeal to the Russian ambassador in Yerevan to get Moscow to intervene in this case and overrule the regional officials who seem intent on preventing Hamshenis from gaining official registration." Does this mean that there are Muslim Hamshenis "in Armenia itself"? Citation needed. Behemoth 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that sounds a bit off, but I sourced it from this article: http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/051205Russia.shtml. Perhaps we should just remove it for ambiguity (though I can't help but think that this has something to do more with the Christian Hamshenis than the Muslims). -- Clevelander 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there is no ambiguity. But the event is not that Muslim Hamshenis "wish to have their own cultural organization". This is; they are not considered as Kazakh citizens by Kazakhstani authorities nor given Russian citizenship by Russian authorities and they try to register in the Krasnodar Krai and want a permanent residence there. However, Russian authorities simply don't want them and approach them like as they do with other "Meskhetians". Russia is currently just waiting for the US to take them to America, as it was agreed with the International Organization of Migration in 2004. The sole ambiguity is that the report refers to people from Armenia as the "co-religionists" of Muslim Hamshenis. I think this could be removed and the paragraph re-added to the text. Behemoth 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am of Hamsheni origin (Northern, Christian). I have corrected the "Culture" section where it was mistakenly stated that hamshentsis are primarely fishermen. No, Northern Hamshentsi's primarely grow tobacco, all kind of citrus trees, silkworms, tea and corn as well as other types of agriculture. Some, maybe, are fishermen, but you don't see firshermens nets and boats all around like you would in other areas. Now, I suspect there are some fishermen out there but this is not what they northern hamshenis primarely do. ( Just curious, what was the source for that info?.. )

I think Russian spelling instead of "Кхэмшыл" should be "Хемшил". That's more correct.

Also, the word "Homshetsma", used in this article, I first heard from Dr. Bert Vaux.

I think it came from one of his informants from an Eastern Hemşinli group. Our Northern Hamshentsis (Christian), as far as I know, do not use that particular word. Most of the time we call our language simply "hayeren = Armenian". However, the way we prononce that word is different from what it would sound from a regular Armenian speaker. We use the sound "ä" a great deal in our speach, so it would sound like "häyren". Often you hear "mir lizu = our language", and even rarely "h'mshen(tsu) lizu". avetik

Hamsheni international scientific convention in Sochi

What was the source of information about "Sevan" cultural center's active support for Hamshen conference?.. According to the editor of Yerkramas newspaper, "Sevan" leadership actually boycotted that event, and it was organized and sponsored by "Dashnaktsutyun":

Просто в статье мне резанула слух одна строчка о том, 
что сочинский "Севан" выступил спонсором конференции. 
Это ложь. "Севан" в лице своего руководства конференцию 
саботировал. А что касается организации и финансирования 
конференции, то это сделала партия Дашнакцутюн. 

Avetik 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See here: http://www.yerkir.am/eng/?sub=news_arm&day=18&month=10&year=2005&id=19852 -- Clevelander 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, but there is nothing about "Sevan", that was the objection. Avetik 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I meant this link: http://president.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=14879&date=2005-10-04 -- Clevelander 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Clevelander,

Ok, notice all these will be future tense sentences in the article you citing, and the date it came out?.. This was what Yerkramas announced prior to the event. However, according to the same source, as of yesterday, the Yerkramas newspaper confirmed that "Sevan" cultural center not only did not participate, but actually sabotaged this event, and instead it was organized and funded by Dashnaktsutyun party (see my note earlier). Let's not be negligible here: if it caught somebody's eye, it may be an important matter. If Encyclopaedia mentiones one sponsor, but for whatever reason does not mention another major sponsor, a reader may suspect a bias, which I don't think was your intention. I'm just trying to apply some common cense here.

Kind regards,

Avetik 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a source that confirms this? -- Clevelander 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You can write Yerkramas publisher and editor Mr. Tigran Tavadyan ( info at yerkramas dot org ) to confirm this information. After reading Wikipedia article, he personally emailed me on this topic asking to please correct the information... Avetik 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think this version should work [see page]. -- Clevelander 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Avetik 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WPTR tag

By putting the WPTR tag, i was not disputing that they were armenians, I know that. but I put the WPTR tag since it is a turkey related topic, feel free to add WP Russia and WP Georgia tags as well..:)) Kars is also in WP Armenia, we have to be inclusionist.. :) Baristarim 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now. That's fine. -- Clevelander 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Small question

I really hate to be a prick by asking this, but it would be really nice if somebody put some sources that attest to Hamsheni origins of Mesut Yılmaz and Murat Karayalçın.. I put a fact tag a month ago, and while I understand that this is not a very busy article and therefore provokes much less interest, it would be nice if somebody actually tried to dig up some sources on this. The thing is I have no idea if they are Hamshenis or not, they could be or they could not be.. Frankly, I don't care either way. But remember that these are living people, and as such fall under the same rules governing living person Bios, which state that claims about living people have to be substantiated thoroughly.. I will let the fact tags stay for a long while again, till someone comes up with some info on this.. cheers Baristarim 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Gomno (Yaltkaya) and Çinçiva (Şenyuva) are Hamsheni villages. But you still put factual accuracy tags. Of course, it will not be possible to convince you in any way because your motives are obvious. Without editing a line and probably not even caring to have knowledge on the subject, you are trying to minimise the content of the article and mistify its significance. Behemoth 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF. The thing is Murat Karayalcin article was created just recently by me. It exists now, and you can add those info there with sources. Improve first, then attack, or better, never attack. deniz^T_C

Listen, I read that Hurriyet interview from top to bottom, and to infer from that article that he is a "Hamsheni" (the subject of this article - the ethnic group) really takes some skill. He is from the town "Hamsen" - there is nothing in the article which suggests that he belongs to that ethnic group - that is a vio of WP:OR. The guy is explaining how he was a Grey Wolf when he was young, and from this you are deducing that he is a Hamsheni (the ethnic group)? That's one hell of a stretch. Again, see WP:BLP - bios of living people have to be sourced rock-solid. Are you suggesting that everyone from a city have to be of the same ethnic background? That's also a big stretch. Please do not add back that Hurriyet interview as a source for that claim. Btw, please watch for civility Benemoth - what are "my motives"?

I have been really patient with this article, and will stay for a while as well. So before I put another POV tag, I would like to point out that a fundamental analysis is missing from the groups section: the primary self-identification of these people today. The section (and some of the article) is definitely talking as if there is a huge Hamsheni movement or something, and is twisting a lot of words (like how newer generations and leftist consider themselves as Armenians). Most of these people wouldn't define themselves as Armenians primo today, and the degree of assimilation to the mainstream Turkish society is also curiously missing. I am not putting the tag just yet, but if that issue is not addressed I will, just a note before anyone accuses me of having "motives" :) Baristarim 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go:

Hemşinliler, tarihte farklı toplumsal kökenden gelmiş olsa bile toplumlar birbirini karşılıklı etkilemektedir. Türk toplumu ile Hemşinliler arasında etnik ya da dinsel bir sorun yoktur. Hemşinli olup ülkemizde devlet yönetimine gelmiş eski başbakanlarımızdan Mesut Yılmaz ve eski Dışişleri bakanlarımızdan SHP Genel Başkanı Murat Karayalçın buna en iyi örnektir. Bir çoğunuz Mesut Yılmaz veMurat Karayalçın’ın Hemşinli olduklarını belki bu sayfaları okuyunca öğrenmiş oldunuz. [1]

Khoikhoi 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there are many web-sites out there who claim a lot of things. The text you quoted itself says "I am sure that you have learned that Yilmaz and Karayalcin are Hemsinli reading these pages" (the last sentence). Says a lot, doesn't it? There are also websites out there who claim that even Hatay is a part of Kurdistan and all. In any case, the article says "from Hemsin", it is not clear if it is the ethnic group. Most importantly, since these concern the bios of living people, we cannot simply take the claim of a minor web-site and present it as rock-solid fact. In the Hurriyet interview, he is talking about how he was a Grey Wolf when he was younger, don't you think we need a bit stronger sources than karacaahmet.com? He never mentioned anything to that effect, it is pure speculation, both for Yilmaz and Karayalcin, I can find no mention of this in any serious sources, let alone sources part of a "wide-concensus" - and let me remind that Yilmaz was a PM and Karayalcin was a deputy PM and mayor of Ankara: There is tons of documentation about them, and none of them mention this.

I still stand behind my second comment about the info missing from the groups section: there is no info about any assimilation rates, and I wonder if we are not simply presenting the thesis of only one author at this stage. What is also missing is a other sources about the presence of a seperate ethno-social seperate ethnic identity. Lacking these, the article has some serious POV problems since it is simply publishing the thesis of only one unknown author. Baristarim 11:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Barış, can you please translate the exact words from the karacaahmet.com source? Since he is mentioned in a section called, "HEMŞİNLİLER", I assume the article says he is Hamsheni. (Hemşinli (=Hamshenis) olup ülkemizde devlet yönetimine gelmiş eski başbakanlarımızdan Mesut Yılmaz ve eski Dışişleri bakanlarımızdan SHP Genel Başkanı Murat Karayalçın buna en iyi örnektir. Bir çoğunuz Mesut Yılmaz veMurat Karayalçın’ın Hemşinli olduklarını belki bu sayfaları okuyunca öğrenmiş oldunuz.) Unlike other sources prevented so far, this source meets WP:RS because it cites sources of its own, just like it should. I know your gut tells you he was Turkish, but saying, "since he was a Grey Wolf, he coudn't have been Hamsheni" constitutes original research. He could have been assimilated for all you know. As for your remark about the documentation, remember that the question of ethnicity in modern Turkey is a highly debated and difficult issue. It wouldn't make any sense to list Karayalçın in a section called "HEMŞİNLİLER" if he were an ethnic Turk. Khoikhoi 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish we had access to the source there, Erhan G. Ersoy's book, see this. I e-mailed them, they might send me the article. deniz^T_C 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of Hamshen in Turkey

According to an Armenian researcher there are 100000 Hamshen in Turkey and not 400000. Here is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3459 It makes no sense to exagerate the number of Hamshen in Turkey. Orrin_73

You need a reliable source. Nareklm 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a link in hyeforum, I assume you did not read it. Orrin_73

I did read it its a forum those don't count. Nareklm 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

someone had posted a link in the forum to a study! It is not that someone in the forum said! The claim that there are 400000 hemshin in Turkey is absurd.Orrin_73

Okay man! anyone can change numbers on forums! when you get the link presenting the numbers than put it! Nareklm 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

400,000 is supposedly the total number of Hamshenians, more than 100,000 being from a Russian city. deniz^T_C 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision Proposed

The article misses an objective treatment of the topic of Hemşin and its history.

It touches to the facts that the majority of people of Hemşin identify themselves as ethnic Turks and they speak Turkish only (except for Hopa-Hemşin people). I believe that the authors would also agree with the fact that the people of Hemşin proper and (except for language) Hopa-Hemşin culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor, within some local and natural diversification.

However, the article poses a very biased approach by presenting these people unquestionably to be of another origin (race?) and culture, against their own perceptions. This biased and in my view misplaced attempt is supposedly justified based on incomplete studies of the culture, language and history by some researchers of a certain school of thought.

The one sided presentation of the subject throughout the article is against the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. This makes it very difficult to revise the article on a sentence-word basis and requires a major revision. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, I first want to discuss possible changes to the article in this talk page with the contributors of the article to reach a consensus, and then proceed to edit the article to come up with a Wikipedia policy compliant presentation.

Here below some basic statements:

1) Even though there has been a limited number of old texts (partially conflicting) regarding the Hemşin area, the modern day historians and linguists have only recently focused on the Hemşin region in terms of its civilization history and linguistic background.

2) To date, there has not been any conclusive consensus on the ethnical(?), cultural and linguistic roots of the "Hemşinli" leading to different schools of opinion.

3) In this article the term Hemşinli does not only refer to the present day people of Hemşin proper and Hopa-Hemşin but also to various peoples who once in history had connection to the Hemşin area. Naturally, there are differences to varying degrees in cultural, folkloric, religious and linguistic traits of these people. Consequently, the article shoud avoid giving the impression that any information or inference related to a specific group of "Hemşinli" is also necessarily valid for all other groups of the "Hemşinli" as well.

Before proceeding any further with the detailed discussion and editing, I want to first make sure that we all have a consensus with the above points. Such a consensus would enable us to have a healthy and productive discussion on the article. Omer182 12:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the contributers so far has responded to my request for discussion, as outlined above (almost 3 weeks ago). Does this mean that they agree with the above 3 points? This is a reminder that I am still waiting for feedback from the contributers regarding the above. Omer182 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you - the entry as it stands does somewhat disenfranchise the Hemşinli by giving an over emphasis to the other groups, and to the probable Armenian origins, and to what others say the Hemshinli are rather than what the Hemshinli say they are. But I worry that you might have Turkish nationalistic motives behind your desire to revise the entry. BTW it is not really correct to say that they "culturally associate themselves with the rest of the Turkish population in Asia-minor". Certainly they see themselves as Turkish citizens, but they recognise that they are different from their neighbours. And none of their neighbours are actually ethnically Turkish (they are mostly Laz, or Kurd, or Pontic Greek). Meowy 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Meowy, I am glad that you agree with my observation that the presentation is one-sided. You don't seem to have a specific objection to any of the three points I made above, which implies we are on the same page! With regard to the issue of "cultural association", I want to mention that to the best of my knowledge, the relation of the Hemşinli to the rest of the Turkish population is much deeper than what could be described as merely a common citizenship. This obviously does not exclude local differences and a feeling of a "Hemşinli" identity. It is possible to observe such localized identities in almost all counties in Turkey, and as far as I can judge all over in the world. Even in the much younger nation of the US, basically comprised of immigrants, such can be observed. Further details will be developed in the course of editing. The aim here is to produce a balanced article in accordance with Wikipedia rules which enforce texts free of racist or nationalistic distortion.Omer182 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the discussion above, I propose to start editing the article with the first paragraph, as clarified below. I suggest that the first paragraph focus only on the literal meaning of the term which forms the title of the article, and postpone the presentation of details to the relevant sections.

The proposed form for the first paragraph is as follows:

"The term "Hamsheni" has recently been used (in non-turkish sources) to refer to a number of diverse groups of people who, in the past history or present, have in one way or another been affiliated with the Hemşin area. In historical documents this term is absent. Depending on the pronunciation and language used other designations like Hemshinlis or Khemshils; Armenian : Համշենի ; Russian : Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi ( სუმეხი ) [2] ) are used as well. The turkish equivalent of the word is "Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er). This is the designation used by people who still live in Hemşin or have ongoing affiliation thereto through family ties." Omer182 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there needs to be a more thorough analysis of the subject matter, particularly with regards to the ethnic group of the early 20th century, the people from the town carrying that name and, more importantly, the existence of a seperate ethno-social identity for either of the groups mentioned. I was trying to explain the same thing earlier, but you put it into words much better than I did when you said ""Hemşinli" (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er)" Baristarim 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose to resume editing the article with the "Origins" section. I propose to discuss the history in this section and consequently rename the section as "History". I suggest that the issues of culture (religion, language and changes therein) be addressed in the subsequent section ("Groups").

History Section

My proposal for the "History" section is as follows:

"The foundation of Hemşin is often related to a migration which is claimed to have taken place in the 7th to 9th centuries from Armenia to the Hemşin region. Short passages from the medieval Armenian chronics Ghewond, Asoghik and John Mamikonian form the primary references for the migration, in spite of the fact that there are fundamental contradictions between them with regard to the time and accompanying circumstances of the migration. Neither of the chronics associate the Hemşin area clearly with the migration. The common element is the mention of a Prince Hamam who was either a leader of the migration or a descendant of the migrants.

Regardless of the ambiguities surrounding this migration, it is generally accepted that the migrants confessed to the Christian faith and belonged to the Armenian Church. There ara no specific indications with regard to the language and/or other ethnical characteristics of the migrants. Some Turkish historians deduce that those were Turks; while many other historians deduce that those were Armenians.

Even if the migrants have really settled down in Hemşin, whether and by whom Hemşin was populated prior to that migration and what has happened to them is not clear. There are views which suggest that the area was uninhabited due to its difficult terrain whereas opposing approaches argue that the area was already influenced by earlier movements of people which possibly include ancient anatolian people as well as caucasian and turkic tribes.

Furthermore there are contradicting views with regard to whether Hemşin remained isolated and inaccessible or whether it was open to further migrations after in the beginning of the second millennium. This is also due to the fact that there are no historical documents clearly proving either thesis.In spite of the lack of clear documentation it is deduced that Hemşin has been governed by local Lords under the umbrella of the greater regional powers changing by the time namely the Bagratid Armenian kingdom, the Byzantine Empire, its successor the Empire of Trebizond, the Georgian Kingdom , the Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu Turkmen Confederations until it was annexed in the 15 the century by the Ottoman Empire which collapsed as a result of the WW1 and gave birth to the Republic of Turkey." Omer182 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear that the Hamshenis are Armenians, regardless of the language they speak (whether it be Armenian, Turkish, Russian, or Georgian). I'm reverting this article back to an earlier version. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aivazovsky; your recent revert of the article, without acknowledging the need to dicuss it first,is in direct conflict with the Wikipedia rules and policies. Wikipedia strictly advocates (and enforces as needed) that major revisions should first be discussed in the talk page of the article (Wikipedia:How to edit a page) before the changes are actually implemented in the article itself. More specifically, it has been emphasized that "Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly" and that one should " not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute and be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view" (Wikipedia:Revert).

The changes I have inflicted in the recent months have been implemented following the wikipedia complient procedures as outlined above. The changes proposed have first been posted on the talk page for feedback, and after a reasonable amount of time, in observance of no objections, been implemented. The motivation for the changes, as already discussed above (and being unchallenged by you or any others) is the need to create a wikipedia NPOV policy compliant (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) article.

In light of the above, I post the article as it was when you unruly interfered, and kindly invite you to discuss your opinions on the talk page first before engaing in major changes.Omer182 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, your recent revert of the article without discussing your proposals first,is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. It is dissapointing that you do this violation just after I remind the editors about the wikipedia edit policies. Please refer to the wikipedia references cited above and understand that you need to first discuss your reasons for major revisions before engaging in them. I now take the article to its earlier version as it was when you unruly interfered, and strongly encourage you to share your ideas with us first before implementing such changes.Omer182 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your effort is simply pointless for your edits are completely unsourced. What is the fuss about "New York-er" anyway? Behemoth (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Behemoth: The wikipedia rules are very clear; no revert without discussion. Your single sentence suggesting that the edits I have done are "pointless" and doing the revert based on this one sided approach, with no justification whatsoever, is not what is meant by the term "discussion".

Nevertheless, you might actually have a point in your reference to the sources for the article. I have not removed the references given in the article. You need to let me know what specifically in these edits you think needs additional sources.

Also, you seem to have difficulty in understanding the explanation of the word formation "hemsin-li" by way of an analogy to the structure of the word "new york-er". The suffix "-li" indicates origin in Turkish and produces adjectives from nouns. Thus "hemsinli" means "from Hemsin" in Turkish. This information is actually in the references of the article, but it might be a good idea to include the link (Turkish vocabulary) for a simpler explanation. Let me also say that I am somewhat surprised that a contributor who considers himself/herself knowledgable enough to compose an article about the people of Hemsin does not seem to be familiar with such a basic morphology rule in Turkish.Omer182 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Groups Section

My proposal for the "Groups" section is as follows:

"The Ottoman era has witnessed two major developments in the Hemsin region: Islamization and population movements. Islam faith has commenced to spread possibly prior to the Ottoman rule but it has become the general religion not before the end of the 16 th century. A number of population movements (both into and out of the region) are also known to have happened during the Ottoman era. Detailed information regarding the nature of these movements is missing. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that:

• there has been some emigration from Hemşin of Hemşinli belonging to the Armenian church to western counties of the eastern Blacksea region during the earlier centuries of the Ottoman rule,
• some emigration by Hemşinli of İslam faith to western Anatolia as well as to the Caucasus has taken place as a result of Turco-Russia wars and the accomponying hardships in the 19 th century,
• there have been some immigration into the area during the Ottoman rule.

The present community of Hemşinli thus surfacing is exclusively of Islam faith and Turkish speaking. This goes for the people living in Hemşin or people still maintaining links to the area although they live all over in Turkey.

A distinct community settled about 50 Kms east of Hemşin in villages around Hopa and Borçka call themselves also “Hemşinli” and they are often referred to as the “Hopa Hemşinli”. Professor of Linguistics Bert Vaux at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee refers to this group as the “Eastern Hamshenis”. Hemşinli and Hopa Hemşinli are separated not only by geography but also by language and some features of culture and are almost oblivious to one anothers existence. It is assumed that this community has its roots in a migration from Hemşin or have been settled in this area by the Ottoman authorities. The estimations for the timeframe of this settlement varies from early 16th to late 17 th century. There are controversial opinions also on whether this migration took place in one step or whether two waves of migration took place. The Hopa Hemşinli are exclusively of Islam faith as well. Whether they have immigrated from Hemşin proper as moslems or whether they have converted to Islam in their new homeland is another question with controversial answers.

The Hopa Hemşinli speak in addition to Turkish a language called “Hemşince” or (“Homşetsi” and/or Homshetsma in some sources). Recent studies claim that this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble.

In addition to these groups there are people speking Hemşince / Homshetsma in the countries of the former USSR whose ancestors have probably originated from Hemşin and/or Hopa Hemşin in course of the various population movements to the Caucasus.

Those among them who confess to the Islam have been deported from the Adjara area of Georgia at the Stalin era to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A considerable number of these deportees have moved to Krasnodar Krai since 1989, along with the Meskhetians.

Most of those of Christian faith currently live in Abkhazia and in the Krasnodar Krai region of Russia, in particular, the Sochi area, and Adygeya."Omer182 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Omer182 can you please provide sources for you claims. Because while you were adding your unsourced version you removed a big chunk of existing sources. You also removed an image, categories, templates and entire sections. Looking to hear from you soon, otherwise your hard work is going to be reverted. VartanM (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear VartanM, I have just seen your comment. I will respond to it immediately.Omer182 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear VartanM, thanks for the heads up! I now realize that the template that used to sit by the "groups" section ("Part of a series on Armenians") has been removed during my edit dated 14 January 2008. Besides this, I do not notice any deletions of "the existing sources, images, categories, templates and entire sections" caused by me. The minor changes in the categories are apparently made by Cydebot and user Good Olfactory (who seems to focus on categorization).

The removal of the template was not intentional. As you probably noticed I am editing the text step by step, one section at a time. I first put up the proposed changes on the discussion page before implementing them. So far I have edited the first paragraph, the history section (formerly called origins) and the groups section. During these revisions, none of the sources which were referred to in the sections edited (or in the article in general) were removed. In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source "The Kingdom of Armenia: A History" by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it.

If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify, and also put back the template that I unintentionally removed. I will probably propose changes for the template in due time as well.Omer182 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Omer182 means when he wrote "Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble" - but if he means that modern Armenian and the Hemshinli language are different then he is probably wrong. I recall a group of Armenians from Iran meeting a family of Turkish Hemshinli on Aghtamar Island, and they were able to commmunicate with each other. Meowy 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hemşince is a Turkish dialect with strong Armenian influences spoken by the Western Hamsheni group, but Omer's assertions that Homshetsi (an Armenian dialect spoken by the Eastern Hamshenis of eastern Turkey and the Northern in the former USSR) and Hemşince are the same thing are incorrect. In fact, most of his claims are unsubstantiated. I'm reverting this article back to its original version. The explanation behind Omer's edits appears to have less to do with scholarship and more to do with nationalism. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aiwazowsky:

I observe that you keep on "reverting" without discussion. Kindly stop this. I am reinstalling the version before your "revert". It does not mean anything when you say "most of his claims are unsubstantiated" unless you go ahead and tell specifically which claims/statements you think are ungrounded. I don't wish to enter into personal argumentation and will suffice with merely stating that your allegations regarding my input don't suit to my entries but to yours.

With regard to the particulars:

"Hemşince" is the term used by the Hopa Hemşinli to identify their language..i.e it is identical to the term "Homshetsi". As I had mentioned in the entry, this language is an archaic dialect of Armenian subject to influence from Turkish and Georgian. People of Hemşin proper (classified by some scholars as west Hemshin) on the other hand, speak Turkish ..It is true that there are a limited number of words borrowed from Armenian but the statement "with strong Armenian influences" is not substantiated.

Meowy:

My statement "Hemşince and Armenian are generally mutually not intelligeble " is quoted from Bert Vaux-The Hemshin-ISBN10: 0-7007-0656-9, Chapter 10.Omer182 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I also reinstalled the accidentally deleted template raised in VartanM's comments on April 13th,2008.Omer182 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Answering the unsigned entry dated 13 May 2008 under the title discussion:

The edits I have inflicted have been through a wikipedia policy compliant procedure, in which I have first discussed the edit proposals (one by one). Refer to the first entries just below the title "Major revision proposed" to see "where it all started". Your allegations regarding the removal of pictures and references are simply incorrect. No reference or picture has been removed by me. If you have objections to my statements, you should specifically tell me which statement you think is unfounded (BTW I have stated this numerous times on this page already). I will undo your revert. Omer182 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the recent edits I now see that the unnamed user has reverted all edits I have done since Oct 9, 2007, which had commenced following my declaration and reasoning for a major revision on 11 august 2007. Al-Andalus and Macukali have then added back an image and a reference that were already removed prior to my edits (by other contributors). Basically they have collectively undone several months of edits by various contributors (in 2 days and with no discussion). I have no specific objections to the image or the reference that has been added back, but these minor edits should be isolated and should not be wholesale, and they should be discussed and mentioned. I have reverted the article back to its version on 11 May 2008. If any body wants to add references or images, please do so, as long as you discuss them here.Omer182 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry on 19 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the mentioned entry has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional response. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article.Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 21 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

I believe your approach would have been different if you actually read all the discussions on this page starting my first proposal for a revision (Aug. 11, 2007). I encourage you to read the discussion! My edits are not my opinions but are founded by literature. I again invite you to identify the specific statements in my edits that you think are not founded, or that you think are my opinions. This is the only way to have a meaningful discussion. If such a discussion would require to revise my entries, I would ofcourse do that... However, it is unacceptable to revert 9 months of edits and discussion just by presenting a biased view and trying hard to avoid any in depth discussion. Hence, I now revert the article to its earlier version, and kindly ask you to stop this kind of intervention which now tends to become vandalism.

PS. Regarding the picture, as I had told you earlier, I am not the one who removed it. Check the page history if you need to verify. In any case, I will reinsert it, as I don't have a particular objection to its inclusion. However bear in mind that the pic. was probably removed for some reason and if I were you I would check to see what it was.Omer182 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned entry (IP: 67.49.45.88 ) on 26 May 2008 under "the title of this article" discussion:

no revert without discussion!... Furthermore not even any specific objections or questions or argumentation...I undo revert..Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article

Why is it "Hamshenis" rather than, for example "the Hemshin" or "Hemshinli"? Meowy 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hamshenis" (to my knowledge) is the most frequently used term designated for this Armenian subgroup. Of course they are also known as Hamshentsis, Hemshinlis, or Khemshils. "The Hemshin" would be more appropriate when referring to the region of Hemşin/Hamshen. -- Aivazovsky (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hemshin is the original area of settlement for the Hemshinli, and from that area all of the other related communites originated. For that reason Hemshin should be at the core of the content of this article. Nobody in Hemshin would nowadays call themselves "Hamshenis" - they would use "Hemshinli", so I think it would be more apropriate to title the article "Hemshinli", or, alternatively, "The Hemshin". Meowy 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What about those in Abkhazia and Russia? I believe they refer to themselves as Hamshen. Hakob (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree basically with Meowy….Maybe the article should be combined with the article Hemşin (not "the" Hemşin) which is about the geographical region. Info about the people of Hemşin may be given therein.

By the way…although the spelling of the words "Hemşin" and "Hamshen" are different, the pronunciations are more or less the same; the "a" in english sounds similar to "e" in Turkish and the "e " in Enlish is similar to "i" in Turkish. Thus, the two words are simply the different spellings of the same original word in two different languages.Omer182 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "the Hemshin" sounds better than "Hemshin", or "Hemşin", or "Hemşinli". Essentially, this article is about an ethnic group, and not a region (or a small settlement, like the "Hemşin" entry). The core of that ethnic group, and the bit that still survives in the lands of its origin, call themselves "Hemşinli" (as has been ponted out earlier) - but this is English Wikipedia, so I think "the Hemshin" should be used (all the other names could be linked to this page of course). Hamshenis / Hamshentsis, and similar varients, are the names used in Russia / Georgia / Abkhazia - but they are satellite communities; the name the original community calls itself (given that it is still a living community) should, I think, be the basis of deciding on the article's name. Meowy 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting omer because his edits consist of vandalism, removal of images and citations without consensus as well as original research in regard to the identity of the Hamshentsis. To answer both meowy and omer the armenian speaking christian hamshenis do refer to themselves as hamshentsi just like aremnians from lets say yerevan refer to themselves as yerevantsi and omer reinserts original research and misinformation as well as vandalizes images and other content. if he continues this, he will be reported.70.21.161.85 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But those calling themselves "Hamshentsi" don't actually live in Hemshin any more - they are the descendants of people who left Hemshin in the 19th century or earlier. Those that still live there call themselves "Hemshinli". I've got a copy of the recently published book "The Hemshin", by Hovann Simonian - it's a substantial book full of useful and densely packed information, and is probably the best work on the subject (except for the story of the origin of the Hemshin, which I think is just a folk myth, but which the author treats as fact). Haven't yet got round to reading it in depth, but when I do I'll think about what bits of information in it could be incorporated into this entry. Meowy 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved. An alternative to "The Hemshin" could be "Hemshin people." Perhaps this is also a good time to bring up the Category:Hamshenis people in Turkey. I think it should be removed or at least moved to "Hemshin" or "Hemshin people in Turkey." Also, the article's introduction does not make clear what the Hemshin communities actually call themselves. Hakob (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Meowy andHakob,I observe that there is a very meaningful discussion forming here regarding the title of the article. I will, in due time, join the discussion and contribute. I propose that, for the sake of clarity, this subsection is explicitly devoted to the title discussion. The flow of the title discussion has been interrupted by the unsigned entry which makes unfounded (and actually incorrect) allegations on my edits and has inflicted a revert. I will undo this misplaced revert. I will eloborate on the allegations made and my edits in the section above ("Major revision proposed"). I propose that the discussion related to the wording of the article be carried on there( under the main title "Major revision proposed"). Meowy, I hope you have noticed my latest response to your comment on May 3th, 2008 which I had placed at the bottom of the discussion "Major revision proposed".Omer182 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing but a bling revert and some other commments which have not answered above discussion and simply reverted in a vanalous manner

AND YES YOUR EDITS ROMVING IMAGES ARE CONSIDERED VANDALISM !

. Ans yes, Hamshentis, those that left to avoid genocide still retain their distinct identity as black sea armenians, so it is important and especiall o mention proper spelling hamsentsis rather than omers "turkification." one more revert and he will be reported to ANI67.49.45.88 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning (Aug 11th, 2007), the purpose is to create a "healthy and productive discussion on the article". I am open to all resonable discussions. However, unfourtunately, the above response has no solid statements or questions, nor any palpable objections! It is an outburst of an emotional entry. I will ignore it. I am reverting the article. (This message is also posted at the bottom of the "major revision proposed section" for the sake of completeness. As mentioned before, this subsection is meant for title discussions only).Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy:

Coming back to the discussion on the title issue:

It seems difficult to relate all people related to Hemşin to a single ethnical group. In fact even the concept of ethnicity seems to be problematic for many. It is worth noting that the definition of etnicity as described in Wikipedia (Ethnic group) begins with a quote from Max Weber, "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether"

Another interesting quote from Ben Fowkes (Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World) is as follows:

"In his seminal work, Ethnic Origins of Nations, published in 1986, Smith listed six necessary ethnic attributes. These can be summarized as: a collective name; a common myth of descent; a shared history; a distinctive shared culture, comprising language and/or religion and/or institutions and/or other cultural features; an association with a specific territory; and finally a sense of ethnic solidarity, in other words a recognition of each other as members of the same ethnic group. Smith's view in 1986 was that all these features had to be present to establish the existence of ethnicity (Smith, 1986: 15). Later on he abandoned this insistence, arguing instead that: ‘the more [of these attributes] they have the more they approximate to the ideal type of an ethnie’ (Smith, 1991: 21). But the individual's own subjective consciousness of belonging to an ethnic community, in other words the sense of ethnic solidarity referred to above, is the most important feature of all"

Obviously this article is not about the concept of ethnicity itself. However, it is a fact that present people of/from Hemşin-proper, Hopa- Hemşin and those in Caucasions who identify themselves as Hemşinli/Hamsheni do not share the attributes listed above. Therefore it is not possible to consider them to be of the same ethnicity.

Hakob: I agree that "Hemshin people" would be a better title for this article. However, my reservation is that this term is not established in the relevant literature. Omer182 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are the same ethnicity. Obviously, the Islamic identity of those who remained in Turkey will have opened the possibility of there being intermarriage with other ethnic groups such as Laz, or ethnic Turks, and, similarly, those in Russian and Abkhazia who have a Christian identity will have mixed with Russians, Abhkaz, ethnic Georgians, Armenians, etc. And their physical distance will have resulted in there now being a lot of differences between the two groups. But that does not hide the fact that the two groups (or three groups ,if you count the Hopa Hemshinli as sepatate from the those in Rize) had the same origin - and all the sources seem to follow that line. Meowy 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly I am not too picky about the title, as long as the content is not biased.

Nevertheless, I still want to share with you my views on your above comment:

I think you would agree with me that as of today these three groups share nothing in common , except for an affliation to "Hemşin" as expressed in their self-identification. Actually, these groups are hardly aware of the existence of one another and certainly do not consider themselves to belong to same identity. These observations, as far as I know, are not contested by any sources or researchers, and there is an agreement on them. Thus, as of today, we can not consider these three groups to belong to the same ethnicity. Whether they belonged to the same ethnicity, at some distant past, and the characteristics of that ethnicity, is a matter of research intermingled with scholarly discussions regarding the definition of ethnicity. As of now, there is not a clear conclusion regarding these historical issues. We are not allowed to contribute to this ongoing research in a wikipedia article, and therefore can not draw our own conclusions. Thus, we can and should only try to reflect the present status of research in an "unbiased" manner. This is actually what I am trying to accomplish.Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A colony of snails in one valley is unlikely to be aware of a colony of snails in an adjoining valley - but their mere unawareness of each other does not mean they are no longer identical and no longer share the same origin. This article is not meant to reflect the limited, or inaccurate, or self-censored world view of a specific group; it is meant to reflect reality based on what legitimate sources have written about the subject. I think the article should be arranged to divide the separate groups into separate sections and subsections where that is appropriate (with the Firtina valley Hemshin in Turkey taking precedence for the reasons I explored earlier). However, everything should within the umbrella of a single article because I don't see a justification in artificially splitting it up. Meowy 02:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your assertion that "This article is not meant to reflect the limited, or inaccurate, or self-censored world view of a specific group; it is meant to reflect reality based on what legitimate sources have written about the subject". However, I can not follow your snail analogy. Ethnicity, by definition, is only attributable to humans and is based on cultural aspects with a great emphasis on self identification (Ethnic group). I agree with you also that all the groups who carry the name Hemşin (in whichever writingform) should find place within this article and that Hemşinli of Hemşin proper is the lead group. By the way, Hemşin proper is not only the Fırtına valley but also the Hemşin valley.The present administrative units are the Çamlıhemşin and the Hemşin "ilçe"s.Omer182 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just meant that one group's lack of knowledge about the existence of another related group does not mean that the two groups become unrelated. Insular self-identification doesn't mean that the wider reality changes, or should be disregarded. But anyway, there is probably not enough material to justify separating the geographically separate groups into separate wikipedia articles. BTW, according to the Simonian book, there are also Hemshinli villages in the upper parts of the valley up from Çayeli, as well as the Firtina and Hemşin valleys (and their tributaries). There are also Hemshinli living in the Hodichur valley. I wonder if they are also in Hevek?Meowy 01:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Under early Ottoman rule upper parts of (today's) Çayeli formed Senos (or Exanos) which was one of the "nahiye"s of the "kaza" Hemşin...In that sense this area is to be regarded as Hemşin proper. Hemşinli people, I believe from the village of "Çinçiva", have started using the Hoderchur Plateu in the 19.century... So, as far as I know, Hoderçur had contacts with Hemşin but is not Hemşin. Regarding Hevek, I guess need to look into that. As of now, I believe there is nearly no spot in Turkey where you would not find some families with origin in Hemşin. Omer182 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hodichur was entirely Armenian until 1915. After that, the lands and houses of its former owners were taken by Muslims from the surrounding area - some of them would have been from Hemshin since it is relatively easy to access the valley from Hemshin. I know that some of the villagers from Polovit yayla live in a village in Hodichur in the winter. Hevek and some of the surrounding villages were partly Christian Armenian, so the same may have happened there. Yes, in the 19th century Hemshinli from Çinçiva (Şenyuva) had started to use a yayla pasture in Hodichur, at first paying rent for it but eventually deciding to claim ownership over it. Simonian's book calls this yayla the Hnay (or Khgher) yayla - I wonder if it is the "Davali" yayla at the very top of Hodıchur valley, whose name some other books say came about because of a 19th-century legal case over its ownership. Meowy 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Omer,

Unfortunately wiki is not a place for you to publish your opinions and your interpretations of Hamshenis as a group of Armenian people. You continue to remove content and not justify it, including the picture. I have no choice but to report you.67.49.45.88 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the end of "major revision proposed" to see my comment on the above entry.Omer182 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

i did and there is no consensus - defining an ethnic group is not goal of wikipedia and words hamshenis has been used is your original research, the bert vaux paper is definitive topic on paper and I reported you once. do not make me do it again67.49.45.88 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there was a wholesale revert of the article I answer the above entry at the bottom of "major revision proposed" section. The text of the unknown user may include something related to the discussion on title but it is rather vague and confused...Omer182 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have lost sight of the initial question, what should the page's title be! There seems to have been some agreement that it was OK to change it, so I have changed it to Hemshin to agree with the rewritten lead section I have just added. Meowy 16:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The other alternative could be Hemshinli, given that Hemshin could also have a geographical usage. Meowy 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Protect??

From my talk:

please protect hamshenis page, omer keeps adding original research, no citations and refuses to explain his mass edits, where there is not consensus.67.49.46.213 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not that familiar with the subject, so it is not that easy to spot the original research to me. Can you elaborate on the talk page of the article. Also if you want to seriously be involved in wikiediting please get yourself an account, it only requres a few seconds and gives you many benefits, including more serious attention to your editing Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • -- sure - intro reads like an essay and user removes content with citations from reliable sources for original research. he paints a picture removing armenian association from armenians of hamshen, like denying genocide or the like. I asked him for citations and consensus on talk, but he keeps removing, his earlier vandalism included removal of the picture as well, either he needs to be banned and spoken to or article protected.67.49.46.213 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you, guys, think I should protect the article to help you solve the problem on the talk page? I do not see much edit warring now. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, loook athis edits, vandalism and original research interpretations. he removes dozens of cited ideas sentences for his blabber, anti-armenianism and so on67.49.46.213 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be protected just yet. Omer's edits do introduce substantial amounts of material that is either original research or POV and have removed substantial amounts of referenced material, but that alone is not enough of a reason to protect a page - these problems could be addressed in the talk page. Also, Omer has been making comments and suggestions, some useful, some not so useful, in the talk page for a long time, so he is not the type of editor who will just walk away and never return if the article were to be protected for a week or month or several months. So what's the point of protecting a page if as soon as it's unprotected the same problems arise? Nor can we say that the version Omer wants to change is good enough to remain for a long period as the protected article. Meowy 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to adress the concerns regarding my edits mentioned above:

My approach to editing has been completely in complience with the wikipedia policies. Before engaging in any edits I stated my opinion that there is a need for major revision on 11 August 2007. Please see the section "Major Revision Proposed" on this page. My reason for proposing revision was my opinion that the entry did not stand NPOV as it was. After waiting for app. 20 days, with no response from the contributors, I put a reminder that I was waiting for a response on 2 September 2007. Eventually, with no confrontation and actually some vague agreement on my proposal, I put a dispute tag (9 October 2007). Then, I started the procedure for section by section editing which comprised of first posting the proposal for the edits regarding the relevant section and waiting for discussion for a reasonable amount of time. My first proposal was posted on 28 October 2007 in the discussion page. All my edits have been implemented following the procedure outlined above. So far, I have edited the introduction paragraph of the article, and two sections. My last edit was dated 13 April 2007.

Regarding the responses to my edits, I should say that I did not get any discussion! Starting with 17 January 2007, some users (partially with only IP addresses) have engaged in wholesale reverts, one after the other. The last in chain is the user IP:67.49.46.213 who is the reason for this discussion. There were two aspects common to the approaches of all these users:

• they all made wholesale reverts basically taking the article back to one of its versions prior to 9 October 2007 (Thereby also undoing some edits even before my contributions)
• they completely avoided discussion.

Actually I kindly invited them (numerous times) to specifically tell me which statements in my edits they believed were unsourced or were incorrect. Unfourtunately, I did not get any responses so far.

User IP:67.49.46.213 keeps insistantly making wholesale reverts with no discussions. His/her responses to my invitations for discussion were not understandable, and many times emotional and angry. Just as an example, last part of his/her remark on the summary of his/her most recent revert reads "..no one agrees with your vandalsim, shoo leave bad turkce!". The language is not understandable and does not say anything solid regarding the entry. Several other examples can be observed if one goes through the history of the article as well as the discussions above.

I am not sure if it is still important to touch the "removed picture" issue, after what I have written above, but for the record, I want to say that I have not removed any pictures. I had removed a template by mistake, and realizing this I put it back, after I was warned (see my entry on 11 May 2008 on this page under groups section). The picture that user IP:67.49.46.213 mentiones is the "A Hamsheni woman in traditional dress" picture which was removed by another user before my edits. I have tried telling this to user IP:67.49.46.213 numerous times, but due to communication problems I could never get my message across.

Finally, with regard to allegations related to original research/unsourced edit/ removal of sourced contributions, I want to quote here again my input on 23 April 2007 on this page: "...In my opinion, all the new statements inserted during the edits can be sourced by the references already included. In connection to this, let me also say that the source 'The Kingdom of Armenia: A History' by Mack Chahin does not mention "Hemşin" at all but so far I have not proposed a deletion of it. If you believe my edits require additional sources, can you please tell me specifically which statements you think need additional referencing? I will provide sources for those parts that you identify".

A quick glance at the discussion page under the heading "major revision proposed" will verify all my responses above.Omer182 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SPECIAL SECTION FOR OMER TO DISCUSS EACH OF THE SENTENCES HE WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE

Ok, this is my final try with omer. here he can place and discuss all edits he wamnts to add or remove, one by one, instead of vandilizing page. his edits should be backed by citations and there should be consensus. if he does not work and simply reverts, admins should ban or protect. i have been trying for weeks without a response from this vandal.67.49.46.213 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User(s??) IP- 67.49.46.213:

You should first read my entries in the discussion page (especially the one rigth above), where I have already provided detailed responses to your statements.

To highlight some of the relevant statements there, I provide a very short summary herebelow:

• My edits have been implemented section by section and in complete compliance with wikipedia rules; following a step by step procedure of first posting proposals in discussion page prior to actual edit.

• Wikipedia rules do not allow wholesale reverts (with no discussions) that simply undo months of progressive edits simply taking the article back to scratch.

• This is what you are doing.

• I am not yet finished with my edits as I believe there is a lot to be corrected in the sections I have not touched yet…. Therefore the tag "Disputed" on the article.

• User(s), including yourself(-ves), are naturally free to contribute to the sections I have edited...This should however be in compliance with wikipedia rules and recommendations, namely; post specific proposals/queries/objections on discussion page, allow time for discussion before editing and the like.

I refuse your allegation of vandalism…Whether your attidude is vandalism as defined by Wikipedia rules may need to be looked into… But to say the least, it is definitely not constructive.Omer182 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another case of nationalism denying the blatantly obvious. This article should be re-edited to remove Omer's 'contributions' that are based solely on the fear that the idea of a separate Armenian-rooted Hamsheni identity might somehow infringe on Turkey's mono-cultural Turkic identity. A large proportion of Turkey's population is of Armenian descent anyway; get over it. --158.143.55.45 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The above anonymous editor's comments would be more persuasive to third parties if he/she would start to log in using a named wikipedia account - i.e., someone who can't be bothered to open an account is not likely to be taken seriously in the long term. Meowy 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the above anonymous editor is the same person as 138.89.25.179 then he is just blindly reverting content he has never bothered to read. From this point I will not engage with any anonymous editor posting here, and will consider their reverts to be probable vandalism. I suggest that Omer does the same and just ignores this anonymous person until he/she has the common decency to create a user name. Also, regarding the photo, the woman is a Bash Hemshinli because only they wear that distinctive headdress. Meowy 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

About the move

Wouldn't Hemshin people be a better title for this article? Hakob (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. There is a "Basque people" entry, for example, and "Kurdish people", and so on. And it gets around the problem that Hemshin is also used as a geographical placename. Let's see if anyone else agrees or disagrees. Meowy 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the discussion on title continues, to which I wish to contribute herebelow, there has been a change in the title and an edit on the introduction paragraph. In parallel, unknown users have implemented a wholesale revert with no discussion.

I have brought the article back to its version on date 9 June 2008. I have refrained from moving the page again due to possible complications. Therefore now the title and the introduction does not quite fit. This ambiguity needs to be cleared following finalization of the discussion on title.

I will take Meowy's advice and ignore the unknown users to save time and space.

With regard to title and introduction paragraph, my considerations are the following:

A) Title:

"Hemshin" seems to be an inappropriate title due to following reasons:

• The word "Hemshin" (Hemşin/Hemşen /Hamshen etc) is used to designate a region. There is no doubt or ambiguity about that. To use the same name also to designate people affiliated to that region is confusing .. Such usage can only be justified if it is generally accepted and wide-spread.

• I know that such use is proposed in some related literature but this proposal is new. Actually I cannot recall any such use except for a few references in the recently published book "The Hemshin" edited by Simonian. Even in that book the widely used expressions are Hemshinli and Hamsheni.

• The people affiliated with Hemşin have always been referred to (and have designated themselves) with a suffix indicating affiliation to the region in all relevant languages: "–li" in Turkish, "-i" in Persian (widely used also in Turkish in pre-republic times - I don't know whether the same goes also in Armenian), "-tsi" in Armenian.. The literature is based predominantly on such use.

For the sake of completeness (and without demanding to include it in the text of the paragraph), I also want to mention that the suffix "-li" is used in turkish also to designate affiliation to oganizations / tribes etc..(Osman-lı (ottoman) , Akkoyun-lu etc.). There are also theories stating the term "Hemşinli" is used in such context.

On those grounds I propose the title to be in a form with the suffix..Hemşinli or hamsheni can do...The plural form could be most appropiate and would sound very meaningful in Turkish language "Hemşin-li-ler".. I am not quite sure if that would fit in english " Hemşinlies ".

B) Introduction paragraph proposed by Meowy:

Obviously the choice of the title will affect the content of the introdution paragraph to some degree... Pending the title decision, I comment on Meowy's proposal as follows:

• I appreciate his/her intention to reach "neutral" formulations. Obviously I would agree to proposals which facilitate neutrality or promote any other improvement.

• I cannot see what is considered "unneutral" in my edit for the introduction paragraph. I would like to be informed about that!

• Anyone who has spent some time on this issue knows that the topics of ethnicity (hesitate to say race), language, religion, migrations are controversial…Meowy's proposal declares all the people affiliated with Hemşin to be (unquestionably) of the same "origin", to be "armenians", to still belong to mutual "ethnicity", to have been subject to "forced islamization", etc..

• It is true that all these views are found in some literature but they are neither generally accepted nor unopposed.

• Therefore Meowy's proposal is not neutral.

• The above mentioned issues may be dealt with in the sections "history" and "groups"..Actually my present edits try to do that...

As a side note, I also want to comment on the use of the term Bash- Hemsinli:

I know that this term is used in some literature to desinate people of Hemşin (proper). I am not quite sure when this use has started but suspect that the 1989 article of Benninghaus has initiated the use... "Bash " (turkish "baş") means head/starter/leader/upper and the like…There are places called "Başköy", "Baş yayla " and "Baş hemşin" in the higher parts of Hemşin, not far from "Varoş Kale". So "Baş Hemşin" does not correspond to the entire Hemşin (proper) region rather it denotes a smaller part. I have not encountered any use of this term in Turkish literature to refer to the entirity of Hemşin, and have not heard of any Hemşinli using the term in such context.Omer182 (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the essence of a Wikipedia article.

Firstly, this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. "Hemşinli" is a Turkish word and should not be used for the article title if an equivalent English-language word exists. The word I used was "Hemshin", but I think Hakob’s "Hemshin people" suggestion is better. It fits with the usage in similar articles, such as "Basque people", etc., and it is the English equivalent of "Hemshinli".

Secondly, you are continuing to engage in original research by putting forward your own opinions (I know as much about this particular subject as you do, so I know what published sources there are). I used the word "neutral" to refer to being neutral towards all three groups: the western, eastern, and northern Hemshin people. I was being neutral so as not to disenfranchise or marginalise one group over another. I was not using "neutral" as a way to introducing false information into this article. One should not be "neutral" toward mixing lies amongst truth.

Original research of any sort is not permitted. Neither is material derived from propaganda spouting marginal viewpoints. We all know that Turkish works regarding ethnicity and minorities are almost all propagandistic in nature and created in a cultural climate where it is rarely possible to produce honest academic research. 1000 of those Turkish books are not even worth one slim research-paper produced by an author working within an ethos of academic freedom and rigorous criticism. If you feel offended by that, then maybe you should blame the Turkish politicians and the cowardly professor-doctors that fill Turkish universities and which have discredited Turkish academia to the point of making them contemptable in the eyes of an international audience. Meowy 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I found your response rather disappointing. Your entry does not really discuss the points I have made. In spite of that I wish to comment on it briefly herebelow.

It touches 3 distinct points.

First: use of the term “Hemşinli” and its being a turkish word...

• It is not a simple word but a name or a term, and yes it is naturally Turkish.

• In case you got stuck with the turkish letter “ş”, be aware that this letter is used in wikipedia in ample quantity. However “Hemshinli” is Ok with me as well. “Hemshinli” and “Hemşinli” are widely used in literature in English language.

• “Hemshin People” may be misleading but “Hemshin Peoples” is acceptable... Check your example, the wikipedia article “Basque People” to understand why.

Second: that I engage in “original research”...

You may be referring to my statements like “I know of no Hemşinli...” and the like in the talk page. Those are in context of a discussion which I had believed to take place between open minded participants interested in the same subject..If you go through my edits you will see that personal knowledge and opinions are not included there.. Otherwise I am of course willing to clear them.

Third: your outburst of anger and your understanding of “neutrality"...

I should say that they suggest biasedness and are not worthwhile to comment upon further. Omer182 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal space to lies or half-truths. Turkish works published in Turkey regarding ethnicity and culture are almost never honest and few of them could be considered as impartial sources on the subject. Sad though it may be, that's the way it is. I saw original research in the content of your edits made to the article, and in the content you propose adding, I wasn't meaning general discussion in the talk page. "Hemshin people" vs "Hemshin peoples" - I don't see in the difference something to argue about, and the "peoples" could refer to the three separate communuities. So if you can be satisfied with "Hemshin peoples" then that could be the title. Meowy 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate if you agree on "Hemshin peoples". With regard to original research (again), please let me know where you believe to observe such. I will either correct myself or provide the reference if not already included in the article.Omer182 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You asked about what is wrong with your version of the introduction/lead section:

The term Hamsheni has recently been used (in non-turkish sources) to refer to a number of diverse groups of people who, in the past history or present, have in one way or another been affiliated with the Hemşin area. What a badly-written mouthful of a sentence! It also doesn't even define where this "Hemşin area" is located, or why the groups are "diverse" (in both cases my lead section did).In historical documents this term is absent. False - Hamshen, or varients of it, is the name used in historical documents - for example, in 1614 Purchas called it Hamsem. "Hemshin" tended to start to be used from the early 19th-century onwards. Depending on the pronunciation and language used other designations like Hemshinlis or Khemshils; Armenian : Համշենի ; Russian : Амшенцы; Laz: Sumexi ( სუმეხი ) are used as well. The turkish equivalent of the word is Hemşinli This is not the place for this information - it should be right at the top of the entry, as alternative names in the very first sentence. My lead section did this correctly. (the suffix –li showing affliation to a place similar to New York-er). This is the designation used by people who still live in Hemşin or have ongoing affiliation thereto through family ties. It is obvious that "Hemşinli" means "someone from Hemshin" - it doesn't need explaining, just like we don't need an explanation that a "New Yorker" means someone from New York!
Information that you removed by removing my lead section included: The facts, fully referenced, that the Hemshinli are generally accepted as being Armenian in origin and originally Christian. The fact, fully referenced, that the diverse Hemshinli communities were created as a result of people moving from their original lands to avoid forced conversion to Islam. The names and locations of the three separate communities, facts so self-evidently true that I didn't bother to give a reference for it. The fact that issues involving the ethnic origin and self-identity of the Hemshinli can be subject to controversy in Turkey. I didn't give a reference for that either, though there is a chapter on it in the Simonian book - and your own actions here prove it to be true. Meowy 19:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your entry is based on partially misunderstandings on your side, partially on your structural preferences regarding a lead paragraph as well as language-wise preferences. Also, the biasedness noticable in your earlier entry is to be seen here as well. Any title change, deviating from the "Hamshenis" title requires me to re-edit the lead paragraph in any case, as I have mentioned earlier. I will try take your above mentioned preferences into account.Omer182 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my points regarding inadequacy in your lead section and the removal of the substantial amount of aditional information contained in my lead section. Meowy 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the lead paragraph, also taking into account your feedback regarding the formatting, structure and sentence make-ups. Therefore, I hope your concerns regarding:

• the initial sentence which you (very impolitely) criticised,
• the recent use of the "Hamsheni", which you confused with "Hamshen",
• the discussion of the suffix "-li" (For the record, in this talk page we have observed people who had no idea of its use and meaning possibly because they speak English only)

are dealt with. I have tried to reuse the structure and wording of your proposal to the extent possible.

The claims that all Hemşinli are of Armenian origin and the Islamization was forced upon them, are not unopposed. Neither of the above claims nor the claims on the contrary can be disregarded by means of allegations of the one side on the other. Such allegations are observable on both sides. Recall also Wikipedia rules on this issue. Omer182 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The initial sentence was a mess! And in your current version it still does not follow the standard wikipedia form. I have reused my original version but tried to incorporate most of your additions, like the name of the Armenian dialect and the fact they also speak Turkish. I've put Hemshinli in as an alternative term, and made it clear that it is Turkish and what its spelling in Turkish is. Every source except a few Turkish sources are in agreement that they were Armenian in origin and originally Christian. My use of the word "generally" is meant to indicate to the reader that there are a few sources who oppose that majority position. Meowy 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comments regarding your proposal for the lead paragraph:

• Regarding the first sentence (of my current version), your only objection seems to be that it is not in line with "standard wikipedia form". I am not aware of any such "standard wikipedia form" that advocates the use of your style. Can you please clarify?

• I think in general (and especially in this rather complex issue) the lead paragraph should not go into the details of history, culture, etc. of these peoples. Such details/discussions can be considered in the following relevant sections as far as needed. The lead paragraph, instead, should capture the snaphot today. The theories about their past can not be the major way to identify them.

• Having said the above, I do not agree that there is a general agreement on the origins of all these peoples. It is true, on the other hand, that there is a general understanding that they all had a Christian past (which is already stated in the existing history and groups sections).

I have modified my version partially taking some more elements from your proposal. Omer182 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You have taken no elements - you have just reverted to your version of 14 June, with the addition of the words "Hemsin peoples" in the first sentence. I am begining to think you have nothing useful to contribute here. I had hoped, back when I made my very first comment here, that you were here on good-faith reasons and had a genuine interest in revealing the story of the Hemshinli. That doesn't seem to be the case. Is your purpose to muddy the water and make sure truth is not told? Your lead section is inferior, unjustfiable on content grounds, and should be removed. I think it is now time to start rewriting the rest of the article to clean it from your malign influences. Fortunately, I know this particular subject far better than you, and I can more than equal you in sources - sources that I can summarise honestly. Meowy 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that your recent responses are persistantly impolite. This is starting to disturb me and might create a conflictual situation where the discussion might yield unproductive. I kindly invite you to check Wikipedia:civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and try to calm down.

The only solid points in your above entry are your claims that I have merely reverted and that my version is "unjustfiable on content grounds". With regard to the first, please note various changes in sentence structure as well as your "northern Homshentsik". For the second, you need to be more explicit.

Regarding your knowledge about the subject, I sincerely want to believe that you do indeed know more about the subject and are willing to "honestly" report on it. This would only make me happier.Omer182 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back again at your contributions here, I do not see good faith at work in any of them. Nothing that you have added to the history, groups or culture sections of the article are referenced - nor could there be since it is all just your POV original research, composed from cherrypicking facts you do like, bending them to fit your POV message and excluding anything that doesn't fit that message. Time for it to be removed and replaced by properly referenced material. Meowy 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are, ofcourse, free to contribute but please try to keep in mind that you are not a judge to decide what is right and what is wrong.

In the process of the editing, I recommend to post the proposed changes/additions/deletions in the talk page instead of directly inflicting the edit. If we have a chance to discuss, there is at least a possibility that we find a mutual understanding. Otherwise we both and possibly other contributors as well will need to implement reverts and/or further edits which will not only create a confusion and make an agreement difficult but also may end up in a edit war.

I observed your fundamental edits in the history section without discussion and had to implement a revert. You have basically removed all my contributions, in a wholesale manner. I take your edit as a proposal to consider. To proceed, please inform me about what you think is wrong with my current version of the history section, and please be specific! In parallel, I see that your version includes some additional information. I will evaluate them and give you my feedback soon.

In course of my revert, your entry under heading "Hamshenis in Turkey" is removed as well. Apart from the fact that I could not verify the information, I find such an entry totally misplaced.Omer182 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour in relation to this entry is going beyond all bounds of decency. How long do you think you can continue removing properly referenced material and replacing it with your propaganda? Even someone as fanatical as you must realise that, in the end, you have to come up with some justification in the form of citable sources to back up your chauvanistic propagandising. Meowy 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to remind you again (for the second time) that you are supposed to use polite language.Omer182 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you seem to have the mistaken view that I need to gain your permission before I make edits to this article. I do not: it is usual practice when editing articles for an editor to add new properly referenced material straight into the article, and to remove unreferenced material that an editor thinks is doubtful or harmful to the article or which contradicts the referenced material. Please do not add material to this article unless you can give proper references for what you are adding. If the material you want to add is unreferenced then you should talk about it here first. Do not remove referenced material before discussing it here and getting agreement that it should be removed. Meowy 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was not a referenced addition but a wholesale edit of an entire section, with no discussions or questions. You have changed the whole structure. I already had a version there, and I do not need to rewrite from scratch when you make wholesale changes. As I had told earlier, I will consider the additional information you propose.

Your simple reasoning of my version being unreferenced is not legitimate justification for such a wholesale edit. I have repeatedly requested you to indicate to me what specific statements you consider to be unreferenced. I observe that this time you requested a specific citation in the part which you have not removed. I will provide the reference. (It is also somewhat curious to me that you have actually removed the paragaphs you did not ask for citation leaving the single part that you believed needed citation!) Based on the above, I revert the history section to my earlier version and thereby provide the requested additional reference.

I observe your ongoing concern about references and related wikipedia policies. Herebelow is my understanding according to which I act: General referencing is appropriate as long as a significant part of the material in the article can be sourced by these general references. Inline citations (I guess that is what you confine "proper referencing" to be), on the other hand, are "appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations".

In this context I included also the most recent publication in English which is already frequently quoted in footnotes, namely, "The Hemshin". Omer182 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags in lead section:

You have added a fact tag at the end of the first paragraph. At the end of the paragraph, reference is given to the book "The Hemshin" already. The title of the book as well as various sections of the book refer to the Hemshinli as "the Hemshin", although the normally used designations Hemshlinli and Hamsheni are also used. This book has been published in 2007. Based on the above, I introduced this information (Wikipedia rules consider this not original research but "good editing"). Do you have a requirement for further citation? Do you want that all pages where "the Hemshin" term is used are explicitly mentioned? Or are you in search for an exact statement in the book to define this to be a new proposal? Alternatively, are you challenging that the designation "the Hemshin" has only been recently used to refer to these peoples? (if you can show that, I will ofcourse agree to rephrase the sentence).

You have also added a fact tag to the beginning of the second paragraph (regarding migrations). It is not clear to me whether you question the existence of migrations or whether you doubt if these migrations are responsible for the formation of the mentioned distinct communities. These migrations and their relation to the formation of the distinct communities are considered in almost all publications related to Hemshin, even though the reasons for the migrations may be controversial. The references of this article include two articles that consider these migrations. One of them is the Vaux paper which is provided as a a pdf linked document, which you can easily access. The other one is the Benninghaus article in the book by Andrews. I have extended the reference to include the page numbers of the article.

Based on the above, I have removed the fact tags placed in the lead section. Let me know in case you still think there is need for additional referencing.Omer182 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions about fact tags in "groups" section:

You have inserted various fact tags in the groups section. First one is related population movements and islamization. Those two issues are the backbones of all publications related to Hemshin's history. The reference publications (Vaux, Andrews, Simonian) handle those issues extensively. What is your challenge and what kind of an inline citation do you require? Your second fact tag is behind the phrase "generally accepted" which gives a very brief description of the population movements. Do you challenge and require a citation to show that it is generally accepted? I have not encountered any publication which oppose those, including the ones mentioned under references. The above can also be said about the third fact tag you placed in the goups section as well. I hope these answers satisfy you. let me know, if I don't hear from you I will remove the fact tags.

I will address the other two requests for citations shortly.Omer182 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide references for all content that has fact tags. Remove any fact tags before providing references and they will be replaced. Refuse to provide references and the content will be removed. Try to falsify references and this will be noticed. Page numbers are required for references where specific facts or statements are made. Meowy 20:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Omer, are you saying that most of the unsourced material comes from the Simonian book? Hakob (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He might claim it is, but it is so full of weasel words and distortions that it could not be. Meowy 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

About the term "Bash Hemshinli", I used it as an alternative name because that is what it is! As you yourself admitted it is used by well-known authors who have written about the Hemshin people. Of course the western Hemshinli don't use it as a name forthemselves - any more than they use the name "western Hemshinli" - but the article obviously needs to use different names in order to distinguish between the three groups. Meowy 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a Turkish-speaking member who I believe has commented on this article, which is being discussed at the Hamshen Forum. He specifically mentioned Baş Hemşinli in his post, but I don't read Turkish, so I don't know what he's trying to say. Also, can we revert the article to Meowy's version (which is grammatically correct and more detailed) and resolve the disputes from there? Hakob (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the thread named "Wikipedia Hamshenis"? My Turkish isn't very good, but I think someone called el-hemşini is asking who invented that term (Baş Hemşinli), and saying that nobody locally uses it except those from a village of that name. Meowy 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the post I was referring to. Thanks for the translation. Hakob (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hakob:

I interpreted your mention of Hamshen Forum in this page as a request for assistance from possibly me as a Turkish speaker. I have checked the forum. I have seen a short exchange of two users. They are mentioning similar things as I did regarding the use of the term "baş hemşinli". If you want I can provide you a detailed translation of a few exchanges there, on your talk page.

As I have stated numerous times, I understand that there could be improvements on the introduction paragraph I have put, and I am ready to implement such changes. However, Meowy's proposal is not suitable to take as the baseline for reasons mentioned above.Omer182 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Baş Hemşin is an area at the very top end of the Firtina valley - there are a row of three (if I'm remembering correctly) permanently inhabited villages there (called, predictably, something like upper, middle and lower Hemşin), plus a number of yaylas further up the valleys. And there is a pass over the mountains to the adjoining Hemshin valley, and another to the Hunut valley. I remember being told by a number of different Hemshinli living further down the Firtina that that area is highly thought of because it is considered to have the "purest" Hemshinli settlements, the ones that are closest to their original lifestyle - so maybe that is why "Bash Hemshinli" was chosen as a name for the Western Hemshinli - but whether it is a local name, or one invented by outside academics, I don't know. Meowy 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hemshin (Hamshen) publication in Yerevan

Thought you all might find this interesting. I occasionally read English and Armenian language posts on the Hamshen Forum and was surprised to discover that there is now a Hamshen newspaper in Yerevan (Dzayn Hamshenakan or Voice of Hamshen). The monthly newspaper, in Armenian and Russian, is distributed for free both in Armenia and on the internet. I was browsing through one of their 2007 issues, and there was lots of interesting stuff, such as an article with pictures on an Armenian/Hamshen church that will soon be constructed in Gagra, an overview of a book on Hemshinli by Hovan Simonian, and information on the Hemshinli in Turkey. I could only read four pages though, as I do not read Russian. Hakob (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact Tags and Citations

Meowy, your requirement for citation for the first sentence of the lead section seems to me awkward ...You know that there is nohing to challenge there..This fact is explained and studied in all publications including of course a number of them in the reference list of the entry (Vaux, Beninghaus, Simonian)... Therefore a requirement for citiation is in essence superflous ..Moreover our mutual discussion about the name of this very article is also due to this fact... I cannot see your requirement as an attempt to create a better article.

However I have included some specific citiations to optically clear the article from unneccesary tags and or to avoid getting engaged in an edit war irrespective of whether they are required.

Your tag regarding the use of Hemshinli /Hamsheni (in the lead section) served a purpose!...By reexamination I have found that "Hamsheni" is not used in the referenced publications... It is perhaps used in website forum pages and the like....So I removed the related sentence....

I have removed also the sentence tackling the term Hemshin as identification of the people.I believe this info could be valuable (it is true , that an important publication introduces this term seriously in addition to the classical Hemshinli in English: it may become important and widespread in the future) however it is not worthwhile to try to prove it to you.Omer182 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, the inline citations are needed only for those statements which are challenged Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regarding the fact tags you placed in the groups section, do you challenge the factuality of the statements there? I have already asked this before. Please write down what you challenge for the record. Omer182 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have put the inline citations for the groups section. However, I still want your answer to the above question.

I also made rephrasing to avoid what you considered "weasel words". However, I do think that you have a misunderstanding about what a weasel word is. I invite you to check to section "Follow the spirit, not the letter" at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

I will put the inline citations in the history section in due time. I am also willing to consider the additional information you had suggested to include in the history section, but only after I am done with this time consuming and, in my opininon, redundent procedure of inline citations and rephrasings.Omer182 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm challenging the truth of everything that I have added a fact tag to and a weasel-word tag to. I don't see why it should be that time consuming - you should have the sources already if you wrote the text based on what those sources said, and if you don't have the time then stop removing the edits of others. Once we have references, I can see the degree of distortion you have made to the information contained in those sources. Or rather (since I know the bits that are distortions) you can see those that are distortions, and will either be forced to rewrite your words or let them be rewritten or removed by other editors. I've already have noticed two examples where you have made what appears to be a distortion to what the cited source says, but I'll wait till you complete the remaining reference requests and then address them here all at once. And you should start to listen to what you are saying: "I am also willing to consider the additional information you had suggested to include in the history section, but only after I am done" - it is about time you realise you do not own this article! Meowy 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You state “I'm challenging the truth of everything that I have added a fact tag to and a weasel-word tag to”, this does not correspond to reality. Your own edits and the books you have mentioned to have read show that you have been putting the tags not because you challenge the truth of the statements. You say that you see what you consider to be distortions of information on two occasions where I have inserted references upon your request...but you don't expose those...this is not good faith editing. You caution me that I don’t “own” the article. You are right in that I don’t own it but you are totally out of reality to caution me on that. Throughout the discussion it is clearly observable that I am trying to discuss and agree on the text with any editor interested in the article. I have been doing so also with you in spite of your sometimes extremely impolite and uncooperative manners.Omer182 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

After the removal of those two sentences in the current lead section there is little difference in the content between the version you removed a week ago and the curent version beyond the fact that the current version does not follow the standard wikipedia form and many of its sentences are not particularly concise. So I have taken most of the earlier version, abbreviated it a bit, and incorporated the bits of the current version that it did not contain. I've added "Homshentsi" as a third alternative name since it is used in the cited Bert Vaux source. I've also added a fact tag for the Muslim Hemshinli in Georgia claim - though I think it is true, it does need a source (and since I didn't write it I don't know the source). If any other parts of it are thought to need a reference, then add fact tags and I will add the references. Meowy 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your basic reasoning for editing the lead section, namely that the removal of the two sentences made that version very similar to your earlier version in content is simply wrong. You have also not explained your stipulations about “standard wikipedia form”. Due to reasons already discussed (on 12 June 2008), I have to implement an edit for the lead section whereby I take most of the earlier version and make additions and changes in accordance with your latest edit. Omer182 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You have discussed nothing. There is no POV in the lead, your edit summary is invalid. Stop reverting without reason. How many timed do I have to say it - you do not own this article!

Your are not ****** serious Omer? You actually think that the unreadable mess that is the 24th June incarnation of your desire to "own" this entry will be acceptable? The whole of it should go, and go soon. Meowy 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the seventh time in a short period lately that you use unacceptable language. Don’t you think it is time for you sober up and start to watch your mouth?Omer182 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dealing directly with your malevolent effects on this article any more - it is time for 3rd parties to become involved because you are beyond reasoning with. Meowy 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Lead Section

The lead section is being changed through edits without prior agreement on talk page since some time. Although my preference is to reach an agreement on talk page first (for the lead section and all others) I have no other choice but to follow that line as well.

Just now I have made such an edit.

For the sake of clarity I recall the recent developments as follows:

June 9: the then standing lead section, which was mainly worded by myself, was edited with the declared purpose of (An attempt to get a neutral lead).

June 12: I inquired what was "unneutral" in the removed paragraph and put forward what in my view was not correct in the new edit.

From there on I was confronted with no arguments but insults.

Several direct edits took place...In this course I have tried to carry as much as I can from texts entered by the counterparty.

My edit dated June 21 included also all the requested inline citations and references.

Also this one was, however, fundamentally changed (June 22) and whole sections I had proposed were removed with no clear explanations, using artificial and untrue excuses (like "this version is very similar to my earlier version"...) or vague complaints (concerning "wikipedia standard format"). This change reinserted also the POV statements about which I had explained my concerns on June 12 and did not address or even consider my comments raised by then.

In response, I have again updated the lead section (June 25), taking the relevant parts from the recent edit and removing the POV statements. Unfourtunately, this was followed by an immediate revert.

As a renewed attempt to achieve agreement, I have now updated the most recent version, keeping the referenced material, adding fully referenced information and have tried to achieve a wikipedia policies complient form.Omer182 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)