Talk:Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State

Comments

If anyone thinks that "the Armenians were not the ethnic majority in Armenia until the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century" is a claim by this author, he might as well check article about Yerevan. Even George Bournoutian supports this "claim". This person was just stating well-known fact with regard to this particular issue. Grandmaster 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The borders of Armenia before the 19th century encompass at least two Empires. Yerevan is not synonymous with Armenia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can we delete this insignificant book? - Francis Tyers · 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be nominated for deletion. Grandmaster 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the book, however, I think the freedom of speech should not be restricted based on stereotyping. Atabek

Original research

Some users are attempting to remove original research in support of the one the quotes they mentioned from Weems book. Thus, the quote below should appear on the page, as otherwise, this Wiki page seems like single-sided character assasination by people who haven't even read the book. Atabek 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

However, part of the author's claim about Armenians not being majority in what's now Republic of Armenia, is also supported by Armenian scholars themselves. Namely, Dr. George Bournoutian was quoted in 1983 article edition by Roland Grigor Suny saying: "...prior to the Russian conquest the Armenians accounted for some 20 percent of the total population of Eastern Armenia, and the Muslims 80 percent; following Russian annexation, 57,000 Armenian immigrants arrived from Persia and the Ottoman Empire and 35,000 Muslims emigrated from Eastern Armenia" Another more elaborate quote comes from Dr. Bournoutian reviewed by prominent scholar Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh of Yale University:

In the first quarter of the 19th century the Khanate of Erevan included most of Eastern Armenia and covered an area of approximately 7,000 square miles. To the north lay Caucasian districts recently conquered by Russia, to the south and southwest Iranian Azerbaijan and the Ottoman provinces of Bayazit and Kars. The land was mountainous and dry, the population of about 100,000 was roughly 80 percent Muslim (Persian, Azeri, and Kurdish) and 20 percent Christian (Armenian).

The Khanate was governed by a capable governor, Hoseyn Qoli Khan Qajar, one of the most powerful princes in the realm. Under him, taxes were regularly collected, agriculture and commerce prospered, and population increased. Even his Christian subjects remembered Hoseyn Qoli Khan as a tolerant, just, and noble ruler.

I deleted the above huge chunk of original reseacrh which tried to "prove" that the book has correct statements, but the contributor refuses to recognize that any "proofs" are inadmissible, even if supplied by quotes about historical facts. One may only quote someone else who tries to prove that the book is correct. Only third party commentaries on a book are allowable, not commentaries of wikipedians. `'mikka 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously I don't see your point on bringing the population of Armenia. But it would be also interesting to mention that Shah Abbas has deported 250,000 Armenians from the Armenian Plateau during his reign, and that the Erivan Khanate is not to be equated to the current republic of Armenia, pratically all the lands with substential Muslim population were either transfered to Turkey, Azerbaijan or Georgia. Regarding the author. The author accuses the Armenians to control the US foreign policies, he accuses the Armenians of having engaged activally in the destruction of the European Jews in WWII, he accuse Armenians to be chronic liars who have never been known to tell the truth, say it is about time that they leave for Armenia etc. Fad (ix) 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, user:Atabek wrote: If you do remove, then AAA quote is also irrelevant.. On the contrary, the AAA qoute is about a book and author, i.e., directly relevant. `'mikka 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, at my quick glance it seems that this information, about the Armenian population is missing in wikipedia. Please find an article on history where you can insert the above information. `'mikka 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will reinsert it on one of Wikipedia pages related to history of Armenia and in the right context. I expect that the quote will be quickly removed, in which case, I would like to ask for your support in protecting the original research from being rv'ed. Thank you. Atabek 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I noticed that you are a new editor. Please get yourself familiar with the following policies: Wikipedia:No original research and WP:CITE. Specifically, my objection is to the statement that the book is correct in some parts: you must cite a scholar who asserts that the book is correct, rather than to prove yourself that the book is correct. `'mikka 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the issue that Armenians were not majority is a non-issue and is not the root of the controversy about the book. He probably quoted a lot more correct historical facts. I didn't read the book, but I know that often the problem roots not in facts but in their interpretation. So neither I nor you are experts enough to judge the merits of the book. `'mikka 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, this is a controversial question. While I agree that the reference I brought is not in regards to the book itself, yet the author's (late) character and his work is being completely destroyed in one-sided fashion by representatives of certain ethnic group. While removal of the page may contribute to relieve the situation, yet removal of book quotation alltogether from Wiki is a bit undemocratic and restrictive of freedom of speech and thought. If we want a fair judgement of the book, we should let the audience present facts on which points in Weems book are controversial before completely annihilating his image with certain convictions. Don't you think that's a fair approach? Atabek 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't know whatever you are Azeris or Turk, but it doesn't matter much. But, suffice to say that not much is needed to destroy his character only by quoting him. His wordings are made in such fashions that tallarmeniantale.com would sound as an Armenophilic webside when compared. Fad (ix) 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Weems actually was interviewed by Tall Armenian Tale, but I suppose that's beside the point. -- Augustgrahl 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I know. :) Fad (ix) 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

citations needed

Citations are needed for Weems being disbarred and running to be a mayor. Micrain 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Disbarment Weems v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, 257 Ark. 673, 523 S.W.2d 900 (1975)[1]

Runing for moyor Sam WEEMS v. Bill GARTH, Robert Kreimeyer, and Graham Mullen, as Members of the Prairie County Election Commission, and David Duch [2] Vartanm 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sam weems.jpg

Image:Sam weems.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth

Why delete? There is nothing to delete in this article. Some people whom i can understand where they are can't stand when they face the bitter things. There is a freedom of speech unless there is any violation. So this article has to keep. This book sheds light for the truths. It has referances; if you read it you will understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeyourmove (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)