Talk:Operation Nemesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Operation Nemesis is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Operation Nemesis: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] Sources
Again, I really hate to be a prick by asking this, but are there impartial sources about this? I mean, no offense, but this sentence: "However, the British placed no value on the sentence, and secretly released the criminals and enemies of humanity. The executioners of the Armenian people were moving freely in the streets of Berlin, Rome, Baku, Tbilisi, and other cities." seems not too encyclopedic.. "British placed no value on the sentence" or "secretly released the criminals and enemies of humanity".. In any case, I don't want there to be an edit-war about this, so please get some impartial (not Armenian nor Turkish) sources for this article. If people could use a better encyclopedic tone, that would be nice as well.. Baristarim 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't like the tone, you're welcome to change it. It's a documented fact that the Young Turk leaders who were convicted in absentia of war crimes (among them the Armenian Genocide) did not have their death sentences executed neither by the British nor the new republic of Turkey. Seeing this the case, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation finished off the job itself. Serouj 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a closer look: this article rests on two books written by two people who are claimed to have participated in this: that is not encyclopedic. There really needs to be impartial sources cited. These two books can be used as additional references, however they cannot be used as primary references since there is a conflict of interest, how is the reader suppose to know that the claims are not for self-publicity? Again, pls bring in more sources, otherwise OR tag will be added, but since this is not a bust article, let's wait for a month or so if someone can dig up or find something. Cheers! Baristarim 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Sure they can be used as primary references. The book is not Natalie's autobiography; rather, the information on Operation Nemesis is obtained from the preface, written by a third party, on his involvement. Serouj 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Constantinople or Istanbul
In regards to User:Baristarim's changes: The official name of the capital of the Ottoman Empire was Constantinople. (Please see Constantinople article.) We use official names in Wikipedia articles. Serouj 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- When a city A changes its name to B in year X, and you're in year X+300. Guess what? When you're in year X+300, and you're talking about city B in a year BEFORE the year X, you refer to it as A! If this is a revelation to you, then I suggest you pick up a history book for a city that's undergone a name change.Serouj 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not how the name change happened: Istanbul was in use before 1930, that law only said that from then on only Istanbul will be used - the word "Istanbul" wasn't born on 1930. It is that simple: in the English language of today Istanbul is used to refer to the post-1453 period. Use the contemporary name - Wikipedia is not a Victorian novel, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Henry Morgenthau, wrote a well-known document of the Armenian Genocide in his book, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Book" which you may find online at [1]. There, you will see that he refers to the city not as "Istanbul" but by its official name (at the time), "Constantinople".Serouj 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point: when you refer to today's city, then you call it Istanbul. But when you are referring to a time period when its name was Constantinople, then you call it Constantinople TODAY when you're talking about the city before 1930. This is what history books do. Serouj 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- You are beating a dead horse Serouj: I said: In the English language as is spoken today, an overwhelming majority will not refer to that city as Constantinople, even when referring to the period. I am aware that such was the usage in 1920 - but Wikipedia is written using the English of today, and as such, the only thing that is important is what the usage in the English language is as of 2007. As I said, in the English language of today, the usage is to use "Istanbul" for the period post-1453 - the fact that there was a different usage in 1920 is not important. That's what I am trying to say. Do you know what I mean? For example (:)), Morgenthau doesn't use the word "genocide", now does he? He uses killing etc, but not the word "genocide". So, in your logic, we can say that Morgenthau was a genocide-denier I suppose. No? Just kidding, but you see my point: what is important is the English language usage of today, even when referring to the past - that's all. Baristarim 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite simple, really: Morgenthau wrote in English. He refers to the city as Constantinople and not as Istanbul. You have not presented a shred of evidence, and you're only repeating the same thing without any evidence to back it up. Is this how they taught you in law school? I've provided evidence directly contradicting what you are claiming. Indeed, academic text written today refers to the city as Constantinople in that time period. (And BTW as I've mentioned before, the English language has no rules on what to call Istanbul. History books, however, have a convention of referring to a city by its name at the time period.) Is this insulting your Turkish heritage in any way that Istanbul was called Constantinople prior to 1930? I feel that it does... I hope I'm not "insulting Turkishness"... Lest I get Article 301 slapped on my forehead... Serouj 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No it is not insulting my "heritage" actually :) "Istanbul" didn't drop down from the air in 1930. However, I feel that I have to remind you again about the WP:NPA - one more sniping comment and I really will have no choice to report you and all your NPA comments tonight. I am sorry.
- Anyways, I still don't think you understood what I am trying to say: I don't care what Morgoth said in the 1920s: what is important is the usage as of today. + the article Constantinople clearly lays it down. If anything, giving that wikilink is incorrect since there is no info about the beginning of the 20th century in the Constantinople article about it - that is the evidence, and fulfills WP:ATT. Btw, English doesn't need to have "rules" - it is called the "most common name" rule in Wikipedia. Any case, I really cannot waste any more time arguing about this, the Constantinople article is pre-1453, and such wikilinking doesn't make sense. Baristarim 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I really think you should pick up ONE academic history book and see for yourself. The "most common name" for the city now called Istanbul when referring prior to 1930 (in history books) is CONSTANTINOPLE. When you're talking AFTER 1930, you refer to it as Istanbul. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CITY WHICH HAS UNDERGONE A NAME CHANGE! I have already provided two references for evidence: the Constantinople article and the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time. You, my friend, have provided ZERO evidence to back your claim. Reality check, please. Serouj 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite simple, really: Morgenthau wrote in English. He refers to the city as Constantinople and not as Istanbul. You have not presented a shred of evidence, and you're only repeating the same thing without any evidence to back it up. Is this how they taught you in law school? I've provided evidence directly contradicting what you are claiming. Indeed, academic text written today refers to the city as Constantinople in that time period. (And BTW as I've mentioned before, the English language has no rules on what to call Istanbul. History books, however, have a convention of referring to a city by its name at the time period.) Is this insulting your Turkish heritage in any way that Istanbul was called Constantinople prior to 1930? I feel that it does... I hope I'm not "insulting Turkishness"... Lest I get Article 301 slapped on my forehead... Serouj 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are beating a dead horse Serouj: I said: In the English language as is spoken today, an overwhelming majority will not refer to that city as Constantinople, even when referring to the period. I am aware that such was the usage in 1920 - but Wikipedia is written using the English of today, and as such, the only thing that is important is what the usage in the English language is as of 2007. As I said, in the English language of today, the usage is to use "Istanbul" for the period post-1453 - the fact that there was a different usage in 1920 is not important. That's what I am trying to say. Do you know what I mean? For example (:)), Morgenthau doesn't use the word "genocide", now does he? He uses killing etc, but not the word "genocide". So, in your logic, we can say that Morgenthau was a genocide-denier I suppose. No? Just kidding, but you see my point: what is important is the English language usage of today, even when referring to the past - that's all. Baristarim 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's not how the name change happened: Istanbul was in use before 1930, that law only said that from then on only Istanbul will be used - the word "Istanbul" wasn't born on 1930. It is that simple: in the English language of today Istanbul is used to refer to the post-1453 period. Use the contemporary name - Wikipedia is not a Victorian novel, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Various Disputes
1. "you cant justify an assasination as "successful", armenian. assasination is an assasionation." by Evrenos
- The assassinations were "successful" in that the planned assassination was successfully executed. This does not mean the assassinations were justified, but simply that they reached their objective. (See the Mossad article where there is a "Successful operations" section; they don't imply "justified", simply successful vs. failed.) Serouj 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. "It cant be called "armenian nuremberg" because jewish massacre was "after" *yours*.. the "three pashas" were no criminals but the protectors of the former state from "rebellion armenians".
- This is how some people refer to this operation, obviously after the nuremberg trials. Serouj 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Istanbul vs. Constantinople has already been addressed above. Serouj 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Enver's Demise
"Enver Pasha, the third member of the Ittihadist triumvirate, was assassinated in 1922 in Turkmenistan when he was leading the Basmaji-Hrosakayin Pan-Turanian movement. It is assumed that his killer was an Armenian soldier in the Red Army." Is there a source for this? I've never heard this before in histories about Enver Pasha or the Bismachi Revolt. Also, can you really call the Bismachi Revolt a "Pan-Turnanian" movement? It was hardly even an organized movement, much less a Pan-Turanist one (although perhaps it was both in Enver's mind.) Oldkinderhook 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the reference to Enver Pasha. I have done quite a bit of study of Enver Pasha's life, and this is the first time I've seen his name attached to the Armenian genocide, or that his death was in some way connected to Operation Nemesis. The idea is rather comical to me. Not that Enver was a lover of Armenians, but that they were outside of his priorities entirely. In his efforts to create a pan-Turkic state, although in the end he was working with non-Turkic Tajiks as well. I deleted the note until someone finds a published source. Enver Pasha had his down-sides, but an Armenian-genocidist?
Also, the Basmachis [bandits] were much more a response to the Russian colonization and de-Islamification than anything else. They weren't very organized, which was a problem that Enver himself had with them. Several sources point to his death being the result of double-crosses within the organization, and I do believe the Wiki-entry for him reflects that. I believe his position was given to the Russians, who killed him along with the camp of Basmachi he was with. Michael Hancock 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Could use clarification...
The "Background" section states that the British ignored the death sentences and declined to send the people in question back to Turkey. But the "role of the Russo-British intelligence services" section states that the British were actively hunting down the people in question and trying to get them sent back to Turkey.
Did the British initially release the men and then change their minds, or are these two sides of a disputed story, or what? As neither section has any proper citations, it's hard to judge where these statements are coming from, or which is more reliable. Perhaps an expert historian would be kind enough to edit the article and make the narrative a bit more coherent. 81.86.133.45 11:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The proper citation for the Armenian account (the one in the Background section) is from the intro to Shahan Natalie's book "The Turks and Us".) The information in this book is corroborated by "The Cross and the Crescent" (about Soghomon Tehlirian's operations) and "The Legacy" (about Arshavir Shiragian's operations). I should say that in none of these 3 books have I come across mention of British Intelligence service or how they contributed to Operation Nemesis. Serouj 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable Assertions
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but the claim that the British and Soviet intelligence services collaborated in assassinating various Young Turk leaders seems to be a highly questionable one. There are no sources in this section, and given what is known of MI6 in the 1920s, which was very much an amateurish run service, I very much doubt that MI6 had the capacity to organize such a operation. In the early 1920s, London and Moscow did not have diplomatic relations, and to say that relations between the two states were less then friendly would be an understatement. The British provided support for the White Russians (please remember that the Russian Civil War had ended only in 1920), while the Soviet government was committed to overthrowing the British government via the Comintern. Anyhow, the Soviets were offering support to Mustafa Kemal and his Nationalists in the war with Greece (who were supported by London) at this time, so the claim that the Soviets would work with the British at this time against Turkish nationalism appears somewhat dubious. In the early 1920s, Kemal and his movement, through anti-Communist, was regarded by Moscow as a revolutionary anti-imperalist force that could helped be used to bring down the British Empire. At the Conference of Lausanne of 1923, which resulted in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Soviet Foreign Commissar Georgy Chicherin took a position that has been described as more Turkish then the Turks in regards to the Straits question. It was only later that relations between the Soviets and the Turks cooled. Moreover, the reference to the Armenians as the tool for an Anglo-Soviet assassination campaign appears to imply that the only reasons why Armenians would assassinate Young Turk leaders is because they were put up to it by foreign intelligence services, not because of the Armenian Genocide. A claim by an Egyptian journalist does not in and of itself constitute prima facie evidence that there was an Anglo-Soviet plot to hunt down and murder the leaders of the Committee for Union and Progress. All said, a section full of doubtful claims. --ɐA.S. Brown 05:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I agree. I wanted to delete this section, but wanted to see what other people thought. The person who added this section (on April 2, 2007) is, not too surprisingly, a noted Turk (Jedet72 ) who denies the Armenian Genocide. (View his contributions to the Armenian Genocide article: [2]). Deleting this section for lack of historical evidence. Serouj 20:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- On a further note, Shiragian's book (The Legacy) is definitely worth a read for the sheer DETAIL in which the reconnaissance missions and support operations are described in addition to the actual assassinations. There's no mention of any British or Soviet intelligence, and I don't see a reason why there would be a massive cover-up of it on the Armenian side... Serouj (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone
The sentence: "A 'black list' contained the names of 200 criminals responsible for organizing the genocide of the Armenian people." seems prejudicial.
The people on the list are described as "criminals" and "responsible" for the genocide. Perhaps suggesting that the names were "suspected" or "believed" responsible for the crimes would improve the tone. It sounds biased as it is currently written. also:
"However, the British placed no value on the sentence, and secretly released the criminals. The executioners of the Armenian people were moving freely in the streets of Berlin, Rome, Baku, Tbilisi, and other cities."
Sounds biased as well. Statements of whether or not Britain placed value on the sentences need to be backed up, and the word "criminals" is prejudicial, but perhaps acceptable in the context of their conviction. The sentence that begins "the executioners" sounds like a movie preview and not an encyclopedia. Mrtmat (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
