Talk:Istanbul trials of 1919–1920

About this article...

Is this article written by Guenter Lewy himself? It looks like an exact copy of his denialist thesis, discarding 100% of the trials and 100% of the evidences because of supposed propaganda and because the Ottoman justice works differently than the American one. The verdict is presented as "gifts to the authority". This article is a total non-sense and lack of rigor. --Kremtak 11:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the author of this article reads this : Inquisitorial system, and then removes some sentences like this one :

During the trials, none of the presented evidence was verified.

since the evidences were verified before the trials. This is how it works in some countries like in France and it works well.

Historians familiar with Ottoman jurisprudence do not hold the process of these trials in a positive light[11].

So, your reference for saying this is only one Turkish author? It's quite a weak reference to encompass all the historians familiar with Ottoman jurisprudence. --Kremtak 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OttomanReference, how many FORK will you be creating?

This article is mostly OR, even the claim that it was called Turkish Martial Court because of the targeted subject is OR. Adding the tag. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it should be renamed...

To "Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919–20" (note the en-dash in the date range). 71.41.210.146 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Deniers - identify their sources

Armenian document forgery (2006) ISBN 9944-1-0908-8 by Türkkaya Ataöv

Therefore this person (Türkkaya Ataöv) is a revisionist. Please stop including him as a source, and use the texts inside the quotations that are marked, instead of forging content. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The other book used, by Bilâl Şimşir,"The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question" also contains sources of doubtful origin as he is a member of the tr:Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, or TTK (Turkish Historical Society), an alleged revisionist organization. --92slim (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I can now attest, that because tr:Bilâl Şimşir published for the Foreign Policy Institute, he should not be used as a source. The board of the FPI includes personalities such as Ömer Lütem, who is none other than the director of the denialist think tank called the Institute for Armenian Research. It would be best to leave him out as well, if no other sources can be found for the so-called documents of the Foreign Office (which Foreign Office?) mentioned here by a past editor, which should be verified at some point from reliable sources. --92slim (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The source was removed. Any sources using Bilal Şimşir as part of their bibliography cannot be used because of the revisionism of the latter. --92slim (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Buidhe, I was going to create Ottoman military tribunals as a redirect but then saw that Leipzig War Crimes Trials#Ottoman military tribunals and Prosecution of Ottoman war criminals exist, so I'm leaving it for the time being. It is a plausible search term so perhaps a disambiguation page? Meh, either way I'll leave to people more knowledgeable on the subject. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Turkish courts-martial of 1919–1920 → Istanbul trials of 1919–1920 – The name "Turkish" is misleading, the trials were held by the rump Ottoman Empire and rejected by the Turkish nationalist movement, ending before the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Names for these trials include (Google Scholar results)

• "Istanbul trials" 69 results (I checked–virtually all refer to this event) (+ "Istanbul war crimes trials" 5 results)
• "Turkish courts-martial" 61 results
• "Ottoman Military Tribunals" 39
• "Ottoman courts-martial" 37 results
• "Ottoman State Special Military Tribunal" 32 results, "Ottoman Special Military Tribunal" 5
• "Istanbul Military Tribunals" 11 results

I would also accept a name with "Ottoman" in it, but "Turkish" is misleading. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, who makes an excellent case. Lennart97 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. No English language source was calling the city "Istanbul" at this time. The official name was changed changed from Constantinople to Istanbul in 1930. Before 1930, "Istanbul" was a nickname in Turkish, like "big apple" for New York City. 5440orSleep (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with 5440orSleep that it makes little sense to object to Turkish but accept Istanbul. "Ottoman" seems to trump all and I would prefer a title with that descriptor. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  Srnec, The point about Istanbul is a good one. I would support "Ottoman Military Tribunals", which seems to be the most common name with Ottoman in it. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this article looks similar to another article

The topic of this article looks similar to the article Prosecution of Ottoman war criminals What do you think? الأفعى (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The Newspaper Image

The newspaper image dated November 4, 1918 expresses the Three Pashas fleeing abroad but it does not mention anything like "Their response to eliminate the Armenian problem was to attempt the elimination of the Armenians themselves.", the source of this quote misinforms deliberately. Spiny14 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Reply: The article clearly quotes the historical publication.  // Timothy :: talk  20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show me the quote in the newspaper by just underlining? Because it does not have the quote so I cannot see it. Spiny14 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's in ottoman Turkish which I certainly cannot read. If the text cannot be verified by an editor or rs translation( Ideally preceeding its inclusion on Wikipedia) it will have to go. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can read Ottoman Turkish, and its headline is just "اوچ پاشا داها قاچدي / Üç paşa daha kaçtı" meaning "Another three pashas have fled", nothing to do with the so-called translation quote in the article Spiny14 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The source for the quote is a WP:RS and your "translation" is WP:OR. The article clearly translates the passage. You are free to put in the article headline, but not to remove sourced material.  // Timothy :: talk  22:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  What makes that source reliable? My question is too simple and easy to be answered? Where is the quote in the newspaper? It does not have such an expression. The article does not clearly translate the passage. There is just a low-resolution highlighted newspaper image and mistranslation. I presented what is written in the headline above, and you can see and compare easily. I do not remove the material but the mistranslation. Spiny14 (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you wish to add the headline (which is also translated in the sources), I have no objection. You cannot removed sourced quotes showing the relevance of the item.  // Timothy :: talk  09:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bu that's the essence of the matter, that translation is not true. When looking at the newspaper Ikdam dated Nov 4, 1918, one cannot see such an expression that can be translated. Source is problematic. Spiny14 (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a reliable source. Both sources are op-eds, thus not considered a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion. The authors do not meet WP:SPS and do not speak Ottoman Turkish. I think it's most likely the source got the translation from Wikipedia, where it has been since at least February 2016. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)