Wikipedia

Talk:Hemshin people/Archive 3

< Talk:Hemshin people
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

On reverting

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

Simply reverting does not provide any information to other editors about what they can do to improve an article. This is not a requirement, but a suggestion: please don't revert this article (except obvious vandalism, like the word "penis") without providing an explanation here on the talk page. Then, discuss any disagreements in good faith. If you cannot agree on acceptable content formulation, seek mediation. I am watching the article now, and am ready to investigate if somebody is stonewalling. I'd rather not employ sanctions, but I will if the situation requires them. Jehochman Talk 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the AGF in mind, other editors aren't trying to improve the article. We have repeatedly told Omer that he need to discuss the changes, instead he ignores us and reverts to his version, and if its not him its a SPA that does it for him. I would like to ask them one more time that if they want to change the article they must reach a consensus first. Drastically changing the whole article and then pushing for their own version is not going to work and is going to create endless edit wars, which no one likes. Now I welcome Omer to start discussing his proposed changes one section at a time. VartanM (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you all go to mediation and try to sort out these content disagreements. Stonewalling is not an acceptable editing strategy. I notice that you often revert "no consensus". I notice that Omer 182 does a lot of reverting also, and Eupator occasionally participates in the slow simmer edit war. Why don't you three work out your differences and just leave the articles alone until you are satisfied. Mediation will reveal whether the parties are negotiating in good faith, or not. If you think somebody is stonewalling, mediation is a great strategy for you, because the mediator will see the stonewalling, and can refer the case to arbitration or arbitration enforcement. At that point, the party who is stonewalling will be banned. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you mediate a WP:OWN issue? It's not your run of the mill content dispute.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You assume good faith and make an attempt at mediation. If this content dispute is not resolved by mediation, the focus will turn to behavioral issues, such as tendentious editing, POV pushing, and stonewalling. I suspect several editors might get banned from this page and related pages if that happens. Are you sure you want to risk that? What exactly is the harm in going to mediation with an open mind? Jehochman Talk 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Mediate what? It never got to a point when content could be discussed. Mediation is for content disputes. We have a single purpose account engaged in POV-pushing and tendentious editing. That one editor, Omer, has been camping on this article in violation of WP:OWN, he has been using bad sources and has been misinterpreting good sources. User Meowy attempted to wotk with him for a year, that produced no result as evident on this page. I rather not take this to arbitration for a single user but that might be the only choice left. The proper way to handle this without ArbCom is to identify problems with the article, build consensus on the talkpage, and proceed with cleanup as user Moewy attempted. I have no intention to engage in the same futile task when I can clearly see that the last attempt was stonewalled for a whole YEAR. Despite that I offered a compromise solution, to work on the article on a sentence by sentence basis starting with an earlier clean version as a start point but that was rejected by the SPA.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't need arbitration. There is an existing case called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 that covers this article. You can request enforcement any time at WP:AE with a short presentation and a selection of diffs, if indeed there are behavioral problems. Why must you revert to the year ago version. Why not start from the wrong version (in your view) and negotiate changes section by section, with or without the help of a mediator? Saying, "He's bad, I won't discuss" does not really help your cause. You need to show good faith, and then if he stonewalls, you can file a report and everyone will see the truth of the matter. Right now, it appears to me that both sides might be stonewalling. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that in order to have a content issue, there must be some argumentation on both sides. User VartanM (along with 3 others- , Eupator, Namsos and MarshallBagramyan ) is engaged solely in wholesale reverts. These users have not added anything to the discussions, they have only got involved through these reverts. They have denied discussion and also rejected my mediation request. Therefore, considering this as a user conduct issue, I have brought up this issue (on occasion of Eupator’s latest wholesale revert) in WP:AE, relating to AA2 arbitration case.
Let me also say that there has been a content issue between me and user Meowy. Any mention of stonewalling and/or ownership can only be considered within that discussion. In this context, please note the following:
1) My edits so far are confined to the lead, history and groups sections of the entry (First 3 sections).
2) My initial edits have been significantly modified through discussions with Meowy, who has complained about lack of citations in the history section and a number of things regarding the lead section.
3) Meowy (or any other editor) have not voiced any specific complaints regarding the most recent versions of the history or groups sections (they are both fully referenced). I and Meowy had a detailed discussion about the lead section (Please see table comparisons above) and I made a proposal which I thought addresses a majority of the complaints raised by Meowy (not all). I asked for Meowy's feedback. No feedback was available for two months.
A brief look at the talk page would be sufficient to clearly see that I have taken every opportunity to discuss things, and actually I followed a procedure of "first propose then insert". I have invited admins to get involved so that some sort of disciplined discussion enviroment can be setup. I have great difficulty in understanding how I can still be accused of "owning" or "stonewalling". Why would a stonewalling editor invite admins or request mediation, or make proposals before implementation?
I would really appreciate if these statements can be confirmed by an admin who can take the time to go through the discussions on this talk page; be it in a mediation process or not. Omer182 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The 3-tier diff and link series
Very good. You seem to have done the right thing by posting to WP:AE. An admin will surely look through the page. You may be able to expedite the process if you go through the history and pull a selection of diffs showing where you invited conversation. Also present diffs showing that your edits follow Wikipedia's content policies with regard to neutrality and verifiability. You obviously can't pull diffs showing lack of response. Do also provide diffs showing the wholesale reverts you allege. If you can provide the necessary evidence, and admin is much more likely to take action on your request. Remember, argumentation is not evidence. Jehochman Talk 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now posted a comprehensive section on my talk page where the diffs Jehochman asked for are provided. Please see section "Presentation of evidence as recommended by Jehochman" on my talk page. Omer182 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see you presenting any evidence about anything other than everyone disagreeing with your POV-pushing (reinsertion of wholesale changes). You have totally ignored my documentation restricted on the intro, exactly the way you have ignored and changed subjects when relevant criticism were levelled against your edits, shows that you are not even interested in changing your disruptive behaviour.
Besides, if checkusers shows fruitless (won't be the first time it fails to find the obvious), here’s some intriguing information. Your first edit on Wikipedia was on November 6, 2006, you create your user page by adding several templates. We'd believe you know how to edit and even adding few templates. You then left this account alone until February 3, 2006 where you test how to post in discussion boards. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. After making those edits, two hours later Cihsai appears for the first time on English Wikipedia. Does this, then thought it was not enough, he erases all of your testing here, then continue testing, what you have started two hour before. Again [7], [8], [9].
I am not continuing but there’s cases like when you proposed your major changes just after Chihsai started criticising the article. The timing and the fact that both of you have that book appears to be more than a coincidence. Before stoning other users with such 'evidence' page you should ask yourself why that suspicion against you, and also why does every other user revert you to begin with. I'll stop here, since we are not on your talkpage. - Fedayee (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Omer 182 that the wholesale reverts by the group of 4 should be differenciated from the discussions (or attempts of discussions) with Meowy. I beleive we are now experiencing the fourth wave of those reverts. Jehochman's advice to Omer182 will help clarify the history of those reverts. The wholesale reverts of the group of four are destructive and must somehow be prevented.
The discussions on this article were predominantly between Meowy and Omer182 regarding the first three sections. I have followed it.I have not interfered in order not to further complicate a discussion which was obviously already not easy. I have never reverted or backreverted the whole article or the related sections.Meowy is silent on those sections for some months now although it is obvious from some of his remarks on other occasions that he is not happy with the last version.
Instead, Meowy added some material to another section without prior proposal or discussion . I am presently trying to conduct a discussion with him on those additions.In his latest response to my arguments he stated “If you want to continue wasting your time, be my guest. However, your attempts at whitewashing will still not succeed - the information stays, and I now intend to expand on it.”This demonstrates his way of discussion and examples like that are amply present throuhout the history of this talkpage. Amazingly the same Meowy accuses others with “ownership”.
Having all this in mind I think that a mediation or a supervision of the discussion will be very suitable and maybe the only hope for a meaningful discussion and editing process.
Consequently, i strongly support the idea of mediation thru which we three can discuss and edit properly.
In case the reverting squad would decide to present arguments and proposals for a change, they would be welcome to join the discussion as well. Cihsai (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Cihsai, let me explain. Rightly or wrongly I am treating you like I treat those editors who come to mainstream Armenia-related subjects in order to whitewash history or insert false information. In most cases, such individuals will continue with their campaign even though their "contributions" are inevitably reverted. As an alternative to endless reverting, and in the believe that those editors know their attempted insertions are false, I simply tell them that if the continue, I will include in the article even more of the truthful information that they wish excluded. In other words, if they continue their actions will lead to the exact opposite of their initial goal. It's a response that seems to have worked with a number of editors. I know that you editing history has been fairly restrained and probably does not justify a close comparison to those editors. However, I think what you have been proposing to do to this article is similar to their style of edits. Meowy 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Meowy, you frankly exposed how you “treat” me. For me, AGF is not only a WP policy but a essential principal in any discussion, also in real life. That is, if a result from the discussion is to be expected. When one believes to be able to read the mind of the other, the discussion degenerates into a meaningless battle of words. I therefore always try to clean up my mind from my own uncontrolled “mind readings” in the course of the discussion and try to concentrate on the spoken or written word. Consequently ı DON’T treat you as one of those who try to scatter dirt everywhere.
If you could accept my approach for some time and we could concentrate on logical arguments and published knowledge and WP policies, we could perhaps find agreements. At least we can identify what we disagree on. Beliefs on “dirt scattering” or “whitewashing “ is not helpful.
Your experience in other articles are of no interest to me. In general ı despise of threats. Cihsai (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying it as it is. I believe you are trying to do some whitewashing of the article's content. I am not doing "mind readings". My opinion is based only on what you have been trying to do here, on the material you have been trying to remove from the article. AFG has obvious limits, i.e., it stops if evidence starts to show an editor is not acting in good faith. Good faith requires an editor to put the accuracy of the article above all else, even if that accurate content "serves to criticise Turkey". Meowy 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So, you know what i'm trying to do without reading my mind because for you it is proven whitewashing if somebody disagrees with what you believe to be the truth. There is a specific term to describe this way of thinking . What was it?? In real life we would not bother to carry on with this discussion. You would not care to discuss further with a whitewasher and i would not give a damn to try to persuade somebody who thinks like that. Problem is that we are here on Wikipedia, where we at least have to try to agree. Here my advice to you is once more to overcome yourself and cease for some time to believe i am a whitewasher and pretend to believe that i really mean what i write.(AGF). This may enable you to respond to my arguments rather than repeating what you believe.I don't know what we otherwise can do. You probably don't expect me to change my opinion just because you feel like it.In case this article is saved from the revert attacks, which kill all the editing ,(including your's),i will do something about it. I don't wish to complicate this situation with new inputs and deletions and reverts on these two paragraphs while this nonsense is going on. Until then, and unless you produce arguments, i will not waste my time anymore.I underline my disagreement to your additions to the section "Hemşinli in Turkey". I have presented arguments for my objection whereas you have not presented counterarguments. Cihsai (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The way Omer is working over this article looks mysteriously exactly the way OttomanReference and his several socks have worked on several articles over the years. If I am mistaken, I apologise, but this way of changing entire articles, and attempting to enforce them (see OttomanReference several socks on, for example in the past, the Armenian Genocide). Not only the behaviour, but also the grammar. Some probably remember when OttomanReference was reverted and another user appeared out of the blue supporting him the way Cihsai came.

Jehochman, you are with good intentions, but your proposition on starting with the wrong version does not make sense. The obvious purpose of the changes is to muddy the obvious reality that Hemshin are Armenians, and push the criticism and labelling it as propaganda to remove it. This suspicious SPA Cihsai already admitted such a purpose previously: the ip number user is absolutely right that the negative propaganda about Turkey should be removed.ı don't see any credible argument put forward by meowy.Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda wars. That paragraph will be removed. [10]

When Ips appears, SPA appears in such an obscure article with the good timing to support a fullscale change of very dubious nature it's truly questionable. Meowy did report the extent of the problem with Omer’s changes, he did not go deep enough, as those who know the subject will understand some of the core changes purposes which are far from being good faithed. - Fedayee (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee:
  • Regarding your first paragraph, you are wrong. Please bring this issue in the right platform and initiate an investigation, instead of speculation.
  • This is the first time you appear on this page. If you want to contribute join the discussion rather than starting speculations. You might consider reading my comment above (20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)) and see how this article evolved. Taking it back to a year ago does require some detailed reasoning as the text is fully referenced. Yo seem to believe you are one of "those who know the subject", then I guess you might be willing to provide such reasoning.Omer182 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Fedayee,I have noticed that you mentioned me.
First in connection with “Ottomanreference”: Be informed that i was never on that article....yet.
Then you called me a ”suspicious SPA″. This is not nice. I call upon you and all those with your mindset,(several have appeared in this talkpage),to follow Omer182's advice and file your suspicions in the proper page. Stop scattering bits of your phantasies to this talkpage.
The quotation you got from my comment is correct. It was in relation to Meowy's unproposed and undiscussed addition to the section "Present situation". What is wrong with that comment? You can join in the discussion on that section which i am trying to hold since some time. Meowy did not have any arguments to present. You can assist him there. Cihsai (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My logic is quite simple. If there is a content dispute, good faith editors will use dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, rather than edit warring to resolve differences of opinion. Those who repeatedly revert are edit warring. Note that edit warring does not have any exemptions for editors who are "correct" (there are exemptions for vandalism). Those who use edit warring to control tendentious editing may get sanctioned, even if they are right about content issues. Instead of edit warring, please present evidence of tendentious editing in the appropriate forum, which in this case is arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 13:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this entry to its current version by undoing VartanM's wholesale revert. I hope Jehochman's recommendations will be observed and a renewed wholesale revert will not take place. I have started to prepare the evidence recommended by him. This will include a.o. a comprehensive history of the wholesale reverts including but not limited to the diffs I have already provided in connection my appeal to WP:AE regarding user Eupator( here).Omer182 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, your logic does not take into account that dispute resolution mechanisms regarding Armenian-related issues have long failed. Disruptive users seem to be able to survive 2 Arbcom rulings here on Wikipedia before any real and productive action is actually taken against these kinds of users.

Since you can be considered ‘fresh blood' when dealing, as an admin, with concerns that arise from these topics, I am willing to show you how Omer’s edits are bad faithed only by taking his intro and cutting it piece by piece.

The Hemshin Peoples are a number of diverse groups of people who in the past history or present have been affiliated with the Hemşin area [2][3][4] which is located in Turkey's eastern Black Sea region. They are called (and call themselves) as Hemshinli (Turkish: Hemşinli), Hamshenis, Homshentsi (Armenian: Համշենի) meaning resident of Hemshin (historically Hamshen) in the relevant language. The names in several languages goes first, it has become common practice here on Wikipedia to do this. How many times was this said to Omer? Did he change it? No, he reverted the whole thing. He ignored what the other party had to say.

The term "The Hemshin" is used also in some publications to refer to Hemshinli [6][7]. In 15th century, Hemshin was annexed by the Ottoman Empire. During the Ottoman period, two most important developments are migrations and Islamization. [8] He removed the fact that most agree that they are originally Armenians. You will see how the explicit information was removed from the lead.

Most sources agree that prior to Ottoman era majority of the residents of Hemshin were Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Reading this, you would tend to believe that he read the thing. Wrong, them being Armenian is implicit there, as several groups including Caucasian Albanians, some Assyrian groups in the East, some Christian Kurds and Turks were also from the Armenian Apostolic Church. The initial information which was replaced was the following: It is generally accepted that the Hemshin were Armenian in origin, and were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but over the centuries they have evolved into a distinctive ethnic group in their own right. As you can see, he deliberately removed the first part about them being of Armenian origin.

The details and the accompanying circumstances for the migrations and the Islamization process during the Ottoman era are not clearly known and documented. [9] The process of assimilation of the population in that region is well documented. This information is partly true and it is being clean Ottoman legacy therefore it has no place there, at least with that wording.

Now see what is about to come, and tell me if is good faithed.

As a result of those developments , distinctive communities with the same generic name have also appeared in the vicinity of Hopa, Turkey as well as in the Caucasus. Those three communities are almost oblivious to one another's existence.[10]

The Hemshinli of Hemshin proper (also designated occasionally as western Hemshinli in publications) are Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims who mostly live in the counties (ilçe) of Çamlihemşin and Hemşin in Turkey's Rize Province. Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims, the article was actually about those Hemshinli, which are said here to be Turkish-speaking Sunni Muslims, which removes any information about their Armenian dialect, and them being originally Armenians. See the ill faithed addition in the lead, and as the first groupd presented which happens to be the main group.

The Hopa Hemshinli (also designated occasionally as eastern Hemshinli in publications) are Sunni Muslims and mostly live in the Hopa and Borçka counties of Turkey's Artvin Province. In addition to Turkish, they speak a dialect of western Armenian they call "Homshetsma" or "Hemşince" in Turkish.[11] You would agree with me, I hope, that this too is not a good faithed addition. In addition to Turkish, some Armenian dialect. No information is given that they are actually Armenian. The reader would think that they just know some Armenian dialect, like an English American knows some Spanish.

Homshentsik (also designated occasionally as Northern Homshentsik in publications) are Christians who live in Abkhazia and in Russia's Krasnodar Krai. They speak Homshetsma as well [12]. There are also some Muslim Hemshinli living in Georgia and Krasnodar[citation needed] and some Hemshinli elements amongst the Meskhetian Turks. [13] The same criticism goes here.

The entire modification by Omer on the entire article is controversial, and I will not bother presenting them here, as his changes on the intro should suffice (even though explicit evidences of misconduct, content based, never seem to be of any significance to Admins most of the time). Omer’s intentions on this article are clear, and it is to muddy the reality that Hemshins are Armenians, by replacing explicit statements to this fact by implicit affirmation which would mislead those who read the article.

You want us to report misconduct in the arbitration enforcement, which in our situation most of the time has proven to be fruitless. The fact is that Omer’s changes contain so much controversial information without discussion (that's why I compared him to OttomanReference, who would do just that)… then he wonders why they have been reverted. This is not simple edit warring, this goes against WP:OWN, Omer has gone to make very very questionable edits of very dubious nature in the whole of the article, and worst changes, where it matters the most, the intro. In any sort of mediation, it is custom to return on status-quo and work from there. Omer has no respect for the work of the previous editors of the article, he answers to others’ justifications with a blind ear without showing any flexibility.

If he is here to cooperate with the other editors, he is free to do so, by making his propositions and working from what the article was. On the other hand, if he wants to implement the wholesale change, which would be to ignore months of criticism levelled against it, then he is not here to cooperate. - Fedayee (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee:
Please note the following:
1) You are addressing Jehochman whose involvement in this article is regarding the preservation of the discussion environment. He is not (yet) engaged in content discussion as a mediator here. Therefore I will only very briefly comment on your arguments for the time-being.
2) This is the first time that you have actually raised some specific content issues related to the lead section. Note however that you have not raised any concerns relating to the factuality of the statements in the current version. You have only complained about missing statements that you think needs to be in the lead. Therefore I don’t see how your arguments above relate to wholesale reverting of the entire entry.
3) Your comments above show that you have not at all studied the development of the entry and the discussions. Strikingly you object to a sentence over which we had reached an agreement with Meowy, namely “Most sources agree that they were originally Christian and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church.”. On this point, our disagreement was limited to whether the Hemsinli can be considered as a distinct ethnic group on its own diff. In my entry dated 10 July (23.14) (diff) I have made a proposal for the lead and made the following comment on this issue: “I see we have an ongoing difference there.I have on my part no objection to delete my sentence at the end of the lead section related to “ethnicity” if that could help finding an agreement. With this assumption, I have deleted that sentence in the proposed version.”
4) I hope a discussion environment can be created and we will have a chance to discuss these issues in more detail with you.
5) I also see that you have made a comment saying that the evidences presented in my talk page do not prove anything. Well, if you read the diffs provided there, you will understand what is proven. Omer182 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaching consensus

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Undid yet another WP:OWN revert by Omer182. The current version is how article was before Omer182 made the undiscussed changes. Again I am suggesting to start discussing changes one section at a time and stop the wholesale reverting. There are 5 sections, so we can start with Origins, and once we're done with that, we'll move on to the next one. Thanks for understanding and your cooperation. VartanM (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vartan,
I observe you have made another wholesale revert and have tried to designate this as a reversion of yet another wholesale revert. I am sure you are aware that this is not the case.
As you know (and as has been explained here a number of times) the changes I have inflicted have all been posted on this page prior to implementing, since the very beginning. Discussions have been initiated, objections have been raised and corresponding proposals/modifications have been done. These -several months long- efforts can not be considered/treated as if they never happened. Therefore I am undoing your wholesale revert.
Remember also that I have invited you (and others with similar attitude) for mediation in response to similar wholesale reverts taking the article back to an ancient version. That was a good opportunity for you to express your concerns, however you and others involved did not want to take part.
The correct thing for you to do at this point is not to wholesale revert but to clearly state what specifically you object in each and every (fully referenced ) section in the current version. I kindly request you follow this path.Omer182 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Omer, as evidenced by your lack of effort to reach consensus in the section below, your further wholesale reverts are going to be tagged as vandalism and reported to administrators. Talking with you is like talking with a wall, all I get is an echo of my own words. Many months of trying to work with you were just a waste of time, the WP:AGF cup is now full. VartanM (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
VartanM,
I am having difficulty why you persistantly make me repeat the facts that are well documented on this very page.
Please observe the following facts:
1- You have no input in content discussion
2- you keep wholesale reverting, taking out entire sections of fully referenced material
3- you have declined to go to mediation.
Consequently, please understand that you are the one who is not seeking consensus. I invite you to adhere to Wikipedia policies and state your specific reasons for each referenced sentence you remove from the text, before actually removing them.Omer182 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Their Own POV

I note that there is a discussion of a Turkish person of Hamshen origins about how at least some of the Hamshen see themselves. There is an urgent need for a section on Hamshen self-definitions of identity. From what I have read and seen -- the Hamshen appear to publicly define themselves to be Turks of partial Armenian origins, and it is their Turkish present that they are proud of and cling to, and not their Armenian roots. That having been said, it is also clear that there are some among them (Majority or Minority, significant or insignificant numbers, God only knows) who are both Crypto-Armenian and Crypto-Christian -- in other words, Armenian. The solution to this edit war is an ethnography of the Hamshen -- which would have to be carried out by anthropologists from a neutral country, followed by publications and also by self-defining political statements by elected and civil society elements of the Hamshen of Turkey. In the meantime, there needs to be a section that discusses how the Hamsehn define themselves.

There is a neutral multidisciplinary study on the Hemshin peoples. It is called The Hemshin and was published in 2006. JackalLantern (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Omer182 this is where you propose the additions or changes you want to implement. VartanM (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New population data

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to the article, In the 2002 Russian Federation census, 1,542 people identified themselves as Hamshenis, two-thirds of whom were living in Krasnodar Krai. Where 554,000 is taken from? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I have ceased reverting Cihsai's edits for the time being but would like to call attention to the editor's removal of any mention of the Hemshinli's Armenian origin in the introduction. Turkish nationalist propagandists who dispute/suppress the Armenian origins of the Hemshin can be mentioned in the body of the article but that does not mean that Wikipedia must adhere to their propaganda just because the Hemshin are located within Turkey. I think it might be time to call on an administrator to resolve this issue. Jackal 16:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I, too, will refrain from reverting Cihasi's latest edit, which is merely the latest revert in a long stream of reverts over thhe past few months. I think administrative action is imperative if Cihasi does not provide a clear explanation for the continued removal of well-sourced information.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
it seems the users determined to introduce a statement with regard to alleged "armenian origins" consider it their right to do so WİTHOUT DİSCUSSİON. It is upto the user who wants to insert a change to propose it first in the talk page. This is especially important if this change meets opposition. Moreover it is to be noticed that tis isuue was the subject of intense discusions previously between other users. By the way, this user refuses to be named a "propagandist" Cihsai (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This is no way addresses the reason why you feel compelled to remove any mention of the Hamshen originally having Armenian roots from the lead. You do understand that you are removing perfectly sourced information by making those reverts, don't you? This is the consensus among most serious scholars, and the notion that they may have been Turks, as formulated by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu and others, has been debunked, in this article and elsewhere.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
In case you wish to insert a statement into the lead paragraph which is not accepted by other users (in this case me) you should propose and discuss it. Please note therby that the lead article has been subject of discussions and revisions which aimed at compromises back in 2008. The version now standing (that is prior to your undiscussed addition) dates back to 2009 and has not been contested since then. The article includes reference info about the history and demographics which you do not seem to contest. I cannot see why it is importatant for you include a statement regarding "armenian roots" in the lead article . Please propose the change with supporting aargumentation so that counter arguments may be provided if necessary. ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihsai (talk • contribs) 23:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Just because the statement isn't accepted by you does not mean it should not be in the lead. All I have witnessed from you is a clear POV-pushing that intends to remove all mentions of Armenia and Armenian people from this article. --Երևանցի talk 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please observe the following:

  • There has been extensive and detailed discussion about the article on its entirety starting 2007. A stable version has been achieved in June 2008,
  • The lead has been stable since then, except for a summary effort by user Seth on Dec. 1, 2009, which has not changed the main idea of the paragraph. No major changes since then until recent insertions of [User:JackalLantern].
  • The insertion about origin theories is the very essence of the lengthy and detailed discussions referred to in bullet 1 above.

Thus, best practice suggests that such insertion should first be discussed here on talk page before modifying the stable version of the lead. Omer182 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting to see a user who has not made a single edit since 2009 to suddenly appear and continue (now topic banned) Cihsai's POV-pushing. Just because the lead did not mention their Armenian origin years ago is not an excuse to remove sourced information. It is a huge part of the history of these people and the Turkish Black Sea coast in general. --Երևանցի talk 16:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hemshin peoples → Hemshinli – WP:COMMONNAME Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Երևանցի talk 04:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Google Books

Survey

  • Oppose - as far as I can tell the most common name is "the Hemshin" not "Hemshinli". Thus "Hemshin peoples" is the best way to describe them, given that there is a disambiguation page at Hemshin - this is also in line with most other articles on ethnic groups which share a title with another topic, for example French people for the French, Herero people for the Herero etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"as far as I can tell" is not an argument. please provide statistics or something that will back up your argument. --Երևանցի talk 15:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I ran your Google Books test above with just "Hemshin" as the search term. It generates 861 matches[11]. Also not all of the , looking at the first five of your "Hemshinli" book entries above are relevant. For example, the top five:
  1. [12] The book title is: "The Hemshin: History, Society and Identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey". It uses the term "Hemshinli" a bit in the pages, but the title uses "Hemshin".
  2. [13] This is a German book, so not relevant.
  3. [14] This one does use "Hemshinli" so that is the one relevant entry in the top (5).
  4. [15] Same text as (3).
  5. [16] "The Hemshin, or Hemshinli,1 though, had been mentioned..."
As the move proposer, it is up to you to provide evidence that the proposed title is significatnly more common than the current one. Me saying "as far as I can tell" is to say that I am not convinced by that argument, so yes it is a valid argument.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the reason why just "Hemshin" has over 850 matches is because it is also the name of the region (Hemşin) these people are from? Well, we can analyze Google Books results one by one. From all the options it is the most common. "Hemshin peoples" is certainly not what we want. --Երևանցի talk 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well according to the article, the Hemshin are not actually a single ethnic group, but rather a set of ethnic groups linked together by the fact that they all live around Hemşin. If that's the case, it would suggest that they are "peoples" (i.e. a set of different ethnicities) rather than a single "people". If in fact the article is wrong, and they are just a single ethnic group then "people" might be more appropriate. Regarding whether the actual term "Hemshin peoples" is in common use, in a sense it doesn't have to be. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP, the "peoples" is there as a disambiguator or placeholder, and when it comes to ethnicities or tribes, the form "X people" is generally preferred to "X (people)" as a natural way to disambiguate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as Google can tell, there is only one mention of "Hemshin peoples" in academia. [17] I don't think it's acceptable to use an obscure term as title. "The Hemshin" is acceptable to me and is widely used in academia, but it's like saying "The French". Almost every ethnic groups has major divisions within itself. There is a little connection between Armenians in Lebanon and Armenians in Georgia. These people are also not homogeneous, but that's not a valid reason to use "peoples". I wish more people participated in this discussion so we could have a better understanding. --Երևանցի talk 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hemshinli" looks like an endonym, which would probably be unsuitable per WP:UE. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this Li on the end is just a Turkic plural suffix, one İngiliz, two İngilizler (Englishmen), there's no benefit to readers from using this and "peoples" is a healthy clear natural disambiguator also communicating that there are several peoples.
"Hemshin are" 3 results, no results for "Hemshinli are". ["of the Hemshin" 3 "of the Hemshinli" 4, but per WP:CRITERIA #1 #2 evidently the current title is preferable. The search in proposal includes German books and is not a good test. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is generally accepted...

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The case is that in the reference given Simonian gives this theory without any references to other author; that's why I wrote "According to Hovann Simonian".
I don't care and believe in what Turkish Nationalist propaganda says or believes; as I know how absurd theories they can try to prove.
But even there are others like Bert Vaux, Selim Deringil, Anthony Bryer, A. E. Redgate support this theory; it cannot be said that "it is generally accepted". Something like "One of the popular theories supported by Bert Vaux, Selim Deringil, Anthony Bryer, A. E. Redgate, Hovann Simonian" is much more acceptable. Because when you see something saying "It is generally accepted..." with only one author, who is just PhD candidate and an Armenian and no other references given, it looks like a hoax trying to support Armenian point-of-view. So my offer is somehow to improve the given claim.
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think describing their point of view as a "theory" at this point is appropriate. A theory suggests something that has yet to gain circulation and might be just an idea that has little support. Simonian's work seems to be the most accessible to the public, as it is available online, but the position he takes is merely that of the current consensus. There is still a lot of mystery surrounding the history of the Hamshen but they have been a fascinating topic of study for more than a century now in works published in Armenian, German and other languages. There are still adherents to M. Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu's extravagant theories (I use that in its full sense here) but they belong to a fringe minority.
And why are you stressing Simonian's Armenian heritage as a possible obstacle? Are you meaning to suggest his ethnicity somehow impairs his objectivity and he might be less inclined to write so because of it (or any other Armenian in that case)?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I don't have any objections against Simonian or his works about the Hemshin people and their history. I started to read about Hemshin people several years ago - as you can see my areas of interest if you opened my user page - and I find his work quite comprehensive. I just wanted to show how a person with a neutral point-of-view can see it (as I impertinently consider myself so). If you have any difficulties in finding any other sources/papers on THIS topic, maybe I can help you. Just write here the author, and the name of the work.
But still I don't think that the phrase It is generally accepted... is suitable for the case, as even Simonian in his "Hamshen Before Hemshin" paper gives several theories about their ethnogenesis. One of the popular points-of-view or smth alike - it doesn't matter - reflects the case better. Something generally accepted implies that very few people (if any) has doubt in it. Besides, adding new references will only better the article.
Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not getting what is objectionable about the usage of generally. It does convey that there are other theories, however fanciful. Simonian's book is actually an edited compilation of articles and studies by many scholars from a variety of disciplines and ethnic backgrounds and Simonian himself refers to the Hemshin as "Hamshen Armenians" in the chapter you brought up. He is in fact critical of the theory that they were an Armenianized native population. Other papers on this topic (in English, at least) will be very difficult to find indeed–until the publication of the Simonian, the Hemshin were very much un(der)studied. What kind of "new references" would you suggest adding? Jackal 15:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is, of course, principally open to discussion under what conditions a statement can be qualified to be “generally accepted”. The present discussion obviously however takes place due to the insertion of the sentence in the lead..The reference indicated there does not include a statement that "It is generally accepted that they were "Armenian" in origin" to start with. Hence the ongoing discussion about the usage of the term "generally accepted" seems to me without basis here.Omer182 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I had stated above some time ago that the recently inserted sentence is not included or indicated in the reference provided. So far there has been no responses. The recently inserted sentence, therefore, needs to be removed due to reference issues.Omer182 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed mentioned statement in face of no response to above appeal. Omer182 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"Generally accepted" would denote that it is an opinion held by the vast majority of people. There may be a handful here and there who would reject it but they would be in the minority. This can be applied to the Hamshen, who are believed by most scholars to be of Armenian extraction. There are people like Kırzıoğlu, for whom the idea of anything in Anatolia being of non-Turkish origin was abhorrent, who came and muddied the waters in the 20th century with his pseudo-scientific theories. But other than that, I have yet to see one serious scholar recently question the Armenian hypothesis.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Marshall please note the following:
  • The reference given in the statement does not validate the statement itself. Nowhere in the source can one see a statement that indicates that "It is generally accepted that they were "Armenian" in origin". Thus, the statement is not referenced as it stands.
  • Whether or not the unreferenced statement in question ("it is generally accepted that...") is true or not requires a discussion on its own right. That discussion needs to be made here, abiding by the policies of Wikipedia which discourage original research. Omer182 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Impossible to communicate with some users

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was trying to add a 'citation needed' tag to the legend/subtitles of a picture where it claims, about a town, that it is 'mostly populated by western Hemshinlis'. I know that it is not. This is why I want to see at least one reliable source that supports this claim. A user who is dedicated to harassing me takes my CN tag from there, claiming we cannot tag picture subtitles(?), and adds it to a sentence that says 'who mostly live in the counties (name of the town here)'. For God's sake since when 'X people mostly live in Q city' mean the same thing as 'the Q city is mostly populated by X people'? Let me give an example, although unnecessary for the majority users, but could be necessary for my harasser: If we say 'Most Turkish Armenians live in Istanbul' that is because the majority of the Armenians in Turkey live in Istanbul; but that does not mean that 'Istanbul is mostly populated by Armenians', as the Armenians are a small community within the Turkish society. Therefore my request for a citation was/is 100% right. Why didn't I discuss it before then? Because see the level of comprehension -and negative attitudes- of my harasser here and elsewhere. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations on Wikipedia are there to support the text of the article. They cannot be there for any other reason. And the caption is there just to describe the illustration, and not to add new content not already in the article. So, in this article, that photo is about something that is mentioned in the text, and the caption is also about something that is mentioned in the text. If you have a query about the accuracy of the caption, you should fact tag or clarify tag the text in the article from which the caption is derived. The article has the text "The Hemshinli of Hemshin proper also designated occasionally as western Hemshinli .... mostly live in the counties Çamlihemşin and Hemşin" - from this text is derived the caption "A scenic view in Çamlıhemşin, mostly populated by western Hemshinlis." There is no indication in the article that Hemshinli are minorities in their own land, or in Çamlihemşin. But if you need a source "At the last cluster of houses before Çamlıhemşin, Hemşinese Turkish replaces the accents of Laz. ... There are a handful of Laz who have settled in and above Çamlihemşin, but from here on they form the minority". "Black Sea - A travelers Guide to Turkey's Black Sea", Istanbul, 1990. Page 120. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletions by an editor

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has been deleting correct content from the article, probably for pov reasons (he likes to eliminate mention of anything non-Turkish in articles connected to Turkey). For the record, the deleted content (to date) is: "Some Hemshinli (both Muslim and Christian) are also expert bakers, restaurateurs, and transporters, and those in Turkey have a noted expertise in the manufacture of handcrafted handguns." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't strike your personal attack here (there are many others elsewhere that I may show easily) I will have to report your incivility and this may also reveal your violation of editing limits in certain area of articles. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Present an acceptable alternative reason to explain why you deleted content that had been in the article for years, and I will withdraw the probable pov accusation. Why did you delete rather than fact tag the content? Why did you think that content should be deleted? Why did you delete the mention of the Cornucopia article? And why do you not use talk pages? There has clearly been a lot of past discussion on this talk page (three pages of archives), suggesting past arguments and controversies, but you think you can jump in and make undiscussed deletions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Also - I have travelled to this part of Turkey and so know the deleted content that associated the Hemshinli with being bakers and restauranteurs is correct, but I don't have sources to prove it. Maybe some other editor can find a source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I found a source for the bakers / pastry chefs stuff - but it is from the book The Kackar by Kate Clow, and I will not use that lie-filled book as a source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hemshin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hemshin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hemshin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hemshin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hemshin_people/Archive_3&oldid=1147057589"