Talk:Bitlis

Comments

Untitled

Sources are not sited properly...Thelorien 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be any need for sources in an entry that is so small? I can't believe so many edits have been made to a page that contains almost nothing! Couldn't any of those editors add some actual content? Meowy 03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you examine closely, most of the edits are reverts of anon users deleting material. VartanM 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My actual content, you know real info about Bitlis as opposed to ethnic proaganda was totally undone by someone without any comment. Actually, there was no need for a comment!Murat (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I will have to persist and defend this little patch of wiki from determined vandalism. My factual updates, links, pictures and other valuable contributions are constantly undone without any discussion or explanation. Some people here think they own this town and this page. Before making changes and edits, first discuss, explain and get some consensus. That is how it is done.--Murat (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Making large and controversial edits without prior discussion is exactly how you started this edit-war. Also, removing uncited and/or obviously POV information does not count as WP:Vandalism, regardless of whether or not you believe it is of value. Also, keep in mind the 3RR. The Myotis (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Jevdet Bey Paşa", his real and proper name is "Governor Cevdet Paşa".--Murat (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One does not pick and choose references to bolster one's POV. Out of hundreds of references, I have chosen ones that are easiest to verify. Not one, but all were removed without any reason. Stop harassing references, make an argument, express what facts are specifically disputed. No amount of vandalism here can change or re-frame historical facts. Given how you and your partisans have turned these pages into ethnic and nationalistic propaganda depositories, full of hate and distortions, maybe it is too much to expect a little respect for neutral facts. I will keep trying.--Murat (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In spite of all good faith efforts to inject a little reality in these pages, wanton removal or any reference that does not meet a certain POV continues. This is the page to discuss it before things removed or erased. That is the wiki policy.--Murat (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your lies are just going to get reversed. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Meowy 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What lies?--Murat (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There was major massacre in Bitlis committed against Muslim population by the Armenian irregulars and the Russians when they "briefly" held the town during WWI. The US observers, in their report to the US Congress (a reference repeatedly removed from here) noted that in their tour of the region right after the war, they encountered ZERO Muslims in Bitlis. The reference and paragraph stays.--Murat (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Discuss before editing out major sections and deleting references and sources. What is dubious about a reference? Does that mean not to one's liking? More than half the article has grown into coverage of the WWI events. That belongs to a different article. Maybe that new article can be titled "self-defensive invasion of Bitlis and self-defensive massacre of the Turks there by Armenians"! Just a suggestion!--Murat (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"The US observers, in their report to the US Congress noted that in their tour of the region right after the war, they encountered ZERO Muslims in Bitlis" - that has to be just about the most unbelievable statement I've read on Wikipedia this week! Give us the full quote - and the source you read it in. Regarding your wish to see material moved to a different article - that activity has a name, it's called a POV fork. WW1 was an important period in the history of Bitlis. If you think the size of that part of the entry is too big compared to the rest, then add more material to the rest, and make it genuine material. Meowy 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this is whatg happens when you drink from your own bath water. There are a few things you will learn here. It is not possible of course to make the article original when any edit, unless it contains the term "Armenian massacre", is savagely removed by you and your mob. I am not one to give up though. Yes, I will expand on the reference more. They are not easy to find though, since over the years, most material not supporting Armenian mythology have been sytematically destroyed from the world archives. I know of specific cases in USA. I personally do not need references or books to learn these facts of course. My granfather's family tree was cut down by the Armenians in Bitlis. I do not mean forced evacuations or marches etc., I mean complete anhiliation. Van and Bitlis are where there were large scale massacres of local Muslims, mostly women, children, old and invalid by Armenians. See if you can find any references on these pages. No amount of burying your head in the sand will change this fact.--Murat (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources are sources. We do not care what conspiracies you allege or what colorful anecdotes you can weave. Unless you can cite a mainstream source, (and actually cite it, not just tell us that somebody reported or published it at some time in the past) that proves your point, you have no justification to add it to the article. The Myotis (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Murat, please stop damaging this entry by removing valid and referenced material - and stop claiming to "restore historical details" in your edit summary when actually the edit has removed historical details. Meowy 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1-Do not remove references simply because you do not like them. What is considered a reference is clearly defined by wiki. 2- Some of the details of "battle for Bitlis" in WWI seem out of proportion for an article only 20 lines or so long. Make it a separate entry if you feel up to it and I will contribute. 3- If we are going to count the dead, then surely one needs to mention the large scale massacre of Turks by Armenians there. Van and Bitlis were the two cities where Armenians pretty much erased the local Muslim populations. Will be more then happy to detail it, but it seems to me out of proportion for a small article. 4- Architecture was a bit overdone but I collected the paragraphs and tidied up a bit. At least pretend to keep a semblance of neutrality and objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think one section is out of proportion, then add content to the rest of the article. And if that actually were the reason you removed that material then why do you want to reduce the article even more by saying the architecture section was "overdone". Attempting to get material you don't agree with moved to another entry is called creating a POV fork. Do not remove referenced material that is important to the history of Bitlis. Do not remove material that describes the most important aspect of Bitlis today - its unique built form. Faking content by faking references is a serious offense - do it again and I will report you. There is no such content in Muratoff and Allen that says the "Armenian population of Bitlis has moved out with the retreating Russians in 1916". Zaman's Turkish propaganda is not admissable, and is not even connected to Bitlis - I suppose you can read a map, the alleged site is not in Bitlis. The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). And whoever that "16th century Kurdish historian Sherefxan Bedlisi" was, he certainly was not a prince of the Roman empire! Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Every reference provided by myself can be found and traced including NYT ones, which is on line and available and where I found it. Your personal attacks are tiresome and unwarranted and against the rules. I repeat, do not remove references simply because you do not like them. Get some concesus before editing in propaganda. I have no clue who Bedlisi is either. War and battle details belong to another article and way out of proportion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the NY times article exists online then please give the url. I searched for it and could not find it. A known extemist nationalist Turkish newspaper making a claim that is entirely uninvestigated by any archeologists is not a valid source and, as I said earlier, it is not even in Bitlis - this is about Bilis town, not Bitlis region (which didn't even exist in WW1). The proper place for an account of Bitlis during WW1 is in the article about Bitlis, anywhere else amounts to a POV fork. Meowy 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies. Regarding Bitlis, the claim that every Muslim house was destroyed is so moronic that that statement alone should damn the entire document. Bitlis is full of old Muslim buildings to this day, and has thousands of intact pre-WW1 Muslim houses (I guess that might be why you wanted the section on the architecture curtailed - it disagrees with the lies in that report). Meowy 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC

The info given in the article may not be correct, but Zaman is not an extremist nationalist newspaper. It is a moderate religious one, supportive of the AKP and is not particularly nationalist. And there was a Bitlis region (or rather a vilayet) in Ottoman times - though it was much bigger than the present-day province of Bitlis. Just wanted to clear those two points up. Ordtoy (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The former point is perhaps a matter of opinion (regarding the Armenian genocide every mainstream Turkish newspaper appears to be extreme nationalist, for self-preservation reasons if nothing else). But I stand corrected on the latter point. The location mentioned in that Zaman report is a village to the west of Mutki (former Tadvan), i.e. it's in the Sasun region. I was thinking it was in Diyarbekir vilayet during WW1, but looking again, I see it must have been transfered to the Bitlis vilayet at some point (sometime in the 1890s maybe?) Meowy 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkish newspapers are nationalist (well almost all of them), but calling Zaman "extreme nationalist" is disingenuous. In any case, there is no reason to believe that such discoveries are necessarily being studied objectively. Ordtoy (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Zaman source, with its commentary from "Törehan Serdar, head of the Association of Victims of World War I Massacres by Armenians", is undoubtedly an attempt at POV pushing. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but please read what I said carefully. My only comment was that Zaman is not an "extreme nationalist" newspaper. That is all that I wrote (indeed, you could argue that immediately calling Zaman "extreme nationalist" is in itself "POV pushing", no? At the very least it makes the person who writes it look like they do not know what they are talking about). If you have doubts about Zaman's sources, fine. Criticize those. Ordtoy (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well anyway, regardless of its validity or veracity, since the location mentioned - Kavakbaşı village of Mutki - is not in the town of Bitlis it is off-topic for an entry on Bitlis town! BTW, Kavakbaşı is located in a valley that is now flooded by a dam. The valley is named "Khoit" or "Khut" on old maps, the river that runs thorough it is called the "Khoit dere". "Atlas of Armenia" says thet there were 41 Armenian or partly Armenian villages in the Khut district before the genocide - so there is a good chance the mass grave (if such it is) contains the remains of some of those Armenians. Meowy 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling every source not supporting a certain preferred version of history, especially one about which there is considerable disagreement on, is not very helpful to the cause, whatever it may be, and certainly does not make a good argument. Zaman, the English pages, is routinely cited in many major web news sites Yahoo) for example. Niles and Sutherland report is real and widley cited but probably not in the sources you gentlemen "prefer". It certainly contains exaggerations as far as I can tell, but so do many reports everyone else references, but more importantly, there is the general content and conclusion which is hard to misinterperet. They made some crude and quick observations and not very familiar with the area I am sure, and there were very few Armenians left there at the time to subvert the reports anyway as it was done before. Just to put the report in perspective, keep in mind that USA and American public was extremely anti-Turkish at the time, missionaries there fed the barbarian Muslim Turks killing poor defenseless Christians stories incessantly. Even the number of bodies found in that Zaman article seems to be an exaggeration to me, I doubt one could find 20K people of any kind in one area at the time. Still, such graves are discovered (I can provide more detail) more than a few times and almost always found to be full of Muslim victims.--Murat (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think am removing most of your latest addition should be removed. Saying that "the area, as part of the Caucasus Front, was invaded and occupied by Russian army between 1915 and 1916" is wrong and also duplicates existing material. Bitlis was attacked and captured in March 1916 as part of the Caucasus front - the article already said that. The Zaman article is not a valid source - the alleged location is not in Bitlis town, the allegation is made by an extremist Turkish nationalist organisation, and the location and allegation is completely uninvestigated. I've moved the content that uses that Niles and Sutherland report as a reference to the end of the section dealing with the WW1 period. I'm still asking about the NY times reference? Meowy 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Inistance by some on pov edits disrupts the flow of the article obviously, but that is what happens when there is no good faith. All references are verifiable, including the NYT article. Do not remove sections and references, it is aginst wiki rules. What you have called allegations are facts unfortunately, just read the references, more details of the Armenian atrocities, names of vitims etc., are in a link I had provided earlier but removed from here like many other contributions I had made.--Murat (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you go ahead and verify them? Both the NYT and Zaman have online article archives, and there is no reason we should not have links directly to them. I mean, the title alone tells us almost nothing, and mass graves found in Bitlis hardly prove that the victims were Muslims. When dealing with such controversial matters, we would prefer something more definite, unless you do not want us to see these articles, for some reason. Providing three sources and no links is very suspicious. You have actually viewed these primary sources, right? The Myotis (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at the pdf of both articles as I write this. Your inabilty to reach some sources is not a concern for me. I do not have immediate acces to a majority of the references either. NYT and Zaman are as public as it gets. For your information, mass graves are not a rare occurance in that region. Occasionally they are found to be from Roman times, but mostly they are found to contain WWI victims, and almost always Muslims, which are easy to recognize from their clothing etc.. One can of course say the same thing about many pictures of dead people Armenian propagandists like to display: who knows if they are Muslims or not? I can lead you to other references and recent pictures, and I can place some disturbig pictures here also, but frankly I have feeling they will all be objectionable and I do not see the point of such pictures on these pages anyway. It seems to aim for hatred rather than establishing a fact.--Murat (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad you found the PFDs. Now, give us the links. The Myotis (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if he can. I've searched the NY times online archive for anything to do with Bitlis and couldn't find anything with the cited date. His Zaman reference is not a valid source for reasons I've explained earlier. And the 1919 report was mentioned in a neutral non-POV way "a report claims Russian troops and Armenian irregular forces committed attrocities against the area's Muslim population while holding Bitlis" ... until he removed it. Meowy 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Sutherland "source"[1] and this is the NY times "source"[2]. Enjoy! Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So Murat's March 6th 1916 NY times source is actually about Russian troops taking, quote, "a terrible revenge on the Turkish troops" at Bitlis because, quote, "the Russian troops had witnessed at Van, Mush, and many other places, an appalling sight, the massacre: namely, by Turkish fanatics of tens of thousands of Armenian Christian men, women, and children". In other words, the reference says nothing to support Murat's "Armenian insurgents briefly held the town committing attrocities against the Muslim population" claim. Meowy 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The saddest and most amusing part was this; "The U.S. wasn't at war with Turkey, but America was certainly allied with the Allies. MARCH 6, 1916".... It's a pity whomever runs that site is so historically ignorant. From the World War I wiki-source; "....Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917." Kansas Bear (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Parishan is using the March 6 dispach by manipulating it. The dispatch was to the Morning Post, where it says the Russians punished the Turks (note, the third army as reported in the dispatch itself) for what they did to the Armenians. The original dispatch does not contain anything about Armenians having engaged at that date. (Parishan has some explainations to do). This is what the dispatch actually says: Terrible slaughter followed the capture of the Turkish positions at Bitlis. The Russian troops had witnessed at Van, Mush, and many other places, an appalling sight, the massacre: namely, by Turkish fanatics of tens of thousands of Armenian Christian men, women, and children. It was unlikely after such deeds that any quarter should be given. This colossal killing completed the destruction of the Turkish third army. Relevent note to the end of the dispatch, as the note refers to the Turkish third army, which one of his commenders (Vehib) himself punished participants of the Armenian massacres by his own initiative and against above order by slaughtering them.

Parishan is using the untrustworthy website tallarmeniantale, see this reference is from there March 6, and see by which reference it was followed by McCarthy's reference to Niles and Sutherland. It is unlikelly that this order of the references was an accident because Niles and Sutherland report wasn't even specifically about Bitlis. Parishan is readding the thing by claiming that reference is being removed. Under this guise about any worthless, irrelevent and plainly manipulated stuff could be added to the untrusthworthy so-called encyclopedia.

Problem being that Niles and Sutherland report is not considered as trusthworthy by any credible historian (and no McCarthy is not considered as credible). A review of the list of houses left provided by their reports before and after expose the report for what it was, rubbish. The report claims that in the city of Van from the 3,400 Muslim houses only 3 were left (they claim 1,170 Armenian houses were left). The claim that no Muslim houses were left in the Bitlis city, nothing of the 6,500 houses. (while they claim that out of the 1,500 Armenian houses 1,000 remained, while the highest proportion of mortality was recorded nowhere else than Bitlis). In the villages of Van, only 350 Muslim houses being left. And guess what, the Armenians even managed from the report to increase the number of their houses there, fantastic, etc.

I assure you, none of the math above is less apalling than 1.2M Armenians dying 1.5-2.5M times!--Murat (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, this is not the most interesting part of this, the report also claims that because of some imaginary Armenian army the Ottoman Empire is ruined, and because of this fictif army, only ¼ of the former population and 1/8 of the buildings are remaining (this almighty Armenian army could not even secure a tiny region in Eastern Anatolia). This was a copy of the claimed levelled by the Turkish delegation after the war. Niles and Sutherland were sent there to study the situation of the Armenians in the Eastern Ottoman to report the relief they will be needing. The Turkish autorities found their ways by switching the role of the victims and agressors to get every penny out of this by claiming Armenians were in a good situation. Niles and Sutherland were in the entire process escorted by the nationalists. No wonder the report recieved no consideration at the Senate. Useless to say how the current politic of the time with Bristol's shadow, confirming the awaited Chestler concession was more than welcomed.

There is certainly a point to the claim that Niles and Sutherland were visiting the area after WWI, and it was mostly the Turks escorting them around. What they did see was still real. In any case, where do you think most the reports inflaming the West about poor Armenians suffering in the hands of Turks were coming from? From Armenians, Armenian church officials and anti-Muslim missionaries. You can not have it both ways.--Murat (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And the report by Zaman? I think it won't be wrong to say that we can't expect Parishan to have added this in good faith. The only reported mass burrials ever reported for Bitlis, were those for exemple of the massacre of 15,000 Armenian there in June from the accounts of the German missionaries as well as officials from Italy, Vatican as well as Greece. In fact, when the Russians had Bitlis under control they took pictures of mass graves from there. Several recorded butchers were from there including the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik who was interned by the British for this. The last reference doesn't even need to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.219.234 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is all true, Mr Anon, except it was Murat who was doing the manipulating and using those sources to do it. It wasn't Parishan. Meowy 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove references and referenced paragraphs. No matter what your bias may be. Not before all here are persuaded--Murat (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hudavendigar, as you can see from above discussion, you have been proven wrong. Be nice and reach a consensus before making anymore reverts. VartanM (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We must be looking at different pages. I see above that the references I had provided were real and factual and were not a figment of imagination as so rudely claimed by some. An apology would have been too much to expect of course.

Most importantly, while splitting the references, what is lost in the dust is the fact that Muslim population of Bitlis (also Erzurum, Mus and Van) has suffered tremendously in the hands Armenian and Russian invaders. In many paragraphs of discussion above, no one seems to actually deny this fact or contradict it. So one wonders what the argument is about. Obviously a concensus has not been reached. No one is convinced and I strongly urge not vandalizing properly referenced statements.--Murat (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are real, the events are real. That is the conclusion of the long-winded discussion above. I am not sure what the problem is.

Lets keep this simple. There is a question as to what happened to the Muslim inhabitants of this major Ottoman city once it was run over by Armenian insurgents and then Russians. You folks above can start cooperating by trying to answer this simple question. It is as if no one other than Armeians lived in this city! I would like to see an iota of good faith. You can not just revert and delete without mentioning the answer to the above question, in at least one single sentence in the whole article. --Murat (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Armenian Houses

I added some material describing the old houses as old Armenian Houses, per the architectural style, and inhabitants in early 20th century, why was it deleted?

There wasn't any source for it (though I do know it is true), and it seemed out of place the way it was written, so I removed it when I added more info about the old houses. There are far more surviving old Muslim houses than old Armenian ones - so what was the point of mentioning it? Are you implying that there is a difference in the styles of Bitlis's houses when built by Muslims or Christians? If a source was found which said there was, then maybe there would be a place for the info. Meowy 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Role of Kurds?

Also, I am wondering, do the western sources discriminate between the Zaza, Turks, Kurds, when talking about "Turks killing the Armenians". Especially, I have the distinct impression that the roles Kurds played w.r.t. Armenians in Bitlis is often understated, considering the city of Bitlis itself has such little Turkish population. What do you think?

Denizkural (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sort of short wartime news reports probably won't distinguish between them because they are simplified and written for a general audience, and Britain/France/Russia was at war with Turkey, not Kurdistan. I think the true scale of Kurdish involvement in the Armenian Genocide won't be investigated until Turkey itself begins to admit that the events took place. As it is now, nobody has any incentive to investigate the exact truth. Kurds curently like to portray themselves in Europe as powerless eternal victims. Armenians seem to look on Kurds with an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude, so don't want to dwell too much on the Kurdish participation in the Genocide. Once the genocide is recognised by Turkey, then Turks themselves will want to reveal that Turkish civilians did not have as big an involvement with the actual killing as one might assume: a lot of it was done by non-Turks, especially Kurds. Meowy 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hudavendigar

Can you please show the link to New York times for where you got the paragraph? Because I couldn't find it, we need accurate references to do things. --HyeTashnak (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we do need accurate references, just as importantly, we need the facts be not burried. That is why there is a reference. It means nothing though if it is vandalized and unilaterally removed. I hope you show the same sensitivity for truly POV entries here.--Murat (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority of editors disagree with the context you have added please refrain from adding unsourced or unaccepted information to articles. We add facts that are verified or that are agreed in the scholarly world. --Namsos (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Objectivity

This article, like many others, have been turned into a an Armenian propaganda piece. It is hard for a casual reader to realize that this is actually Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history. Mostly Armenian history and heritage has been included and all attempts to balance it have been thwarted by POV editors. Various discussions above attest to this. In addition, the tag idenfying the disputed nature of the article have been blatantly removed, though a statement that clearly forbids such removal without a resolution is part of the tag removed.--Murat (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that you provide a more detailed explanation with specific excerpts of the text that demonstrate the onesidedness of this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I see proper reasons for the insertion of a POV tag to the article, I will continue to remove it. Murat has been spamming this tag over multiple articles and has been inserting identical "Disputed Objectivity" sections in their talk pages, all containing identical text (see [3] and [4] - they contain the same text that is posted here). Given that the "Disputed Objectivity" text placed here is off-topic (Bitlis does not have a "thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history" and the article contains almost nothing about Armenian history and heritage), and it has been reproduced unchanged in multiple talk pages (making it impossible to know which article he is actually referring to), the insertion of the POV tag did not follow Wikipedia guidelines on POV tag placement and it should be removed. Meowy 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you, with a straight face, claim that there is no dispute and concern regarding the objectivity of this article? The above sections alone prove that there is a problem. Why claim otherwise and hide behind technicalities?--Murat (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As you see it, what counter-statements would balance the POV, Murat? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Murat hasn't even bothered to explain what he alleges to be POV material. His comment below the Disputed Objectivity subheading amounts too nothing more than an I-don't-like-it rant. If he has content relating to that "thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history" claim, then why does he not just put it into the article? His "mostly Armenian history and heritage has been included" claim is laughable considering only two sentences in the whole article mention Armenians - those sentences being "Until 1915 there were five Armenian monasteries and several churches in Bitlis" and "One third of the population of Bitlis was ethnic Armenian prior to the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, Turks and Kurds, led by Jevdet Bey Pasha, massacred some 15,000 Armenians in Bitlis". Both sentences have accompanying references. Meowy 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where to begin:

"At the end of the 11th century, with the collapse of Byzantine power after the Battle of Malazgirt, Bitlis fell under the control of Togan Arslan, a subject of the "Shah Arman" dynasty based in Ahlat. Bitlis was a Kurdish emirate from the 13th to the 19th century. It was subordinate to the succession of larger powers ruling the Van region but always maintained a measure of independence This Kurdish dynasty lasted until 1849"...

Childishly hidden in this description is the fact that Bitlis was conquered by Seljuk Turks about 1000 years ago, and has been a Turkish/Ottoman city/province since then. It was not an independent Kurdish Emirate, not a place "larger powers" ruled, not an independent Armenian enclave, etc... neither in the intro nor the following section there is any mention of five centuries of Ottoman rule. Most of my edits elaborating on this have been removed.

"One third of the population of Bitlis was ethnic Armenian prior to the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, Turks and Kurds, led by Jevdet Bey Pasha, massacred some 15,000 Armenians in Bitlis.[4]"

There is no real back up for the population assertion, but that is a minor issue. "prior to Armenian Genocide" should have been at least prefaced with "alleged", as this definition is hotly debated and argued by many including historians. There is no evidence to back up the claim that Jevdet Pasa Bey (wrong name and spelling, but side issue) "massacred" Armenians. A word that is abused and thrown around excessiveley for dramatic effect. He was a governor put in charge of quelling a bloody and armed rebellion by Armenians. No mention of armed Armenian actions.

This was taking place in the middle of a WWI, when Ottomans were fighting Great Powers at multiple fronts. Armenian rebellions and overt collaboration with the enemy cost the Turks dearly. None of this is in the article. There is no mention of that, any attempts I had made to balance it has been attacked by this gang immediately.

Bitlis was a site of major Armenian revolt and also killing of pretty much all of the city's Muslims during their armed rebellions and collaborations with invading Russians. References to this effect have been removed by the pov editors on sight as the history shows.

Once the validity of the argument over the objectivity of the article is accepted by all, then we can try to balance it a little.--Murat (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of the history of Bitlis seems very limited. If you have a date and a reference for the capture of the town by the Seljuk Turks then put it in the article. Everything else you have said shows both your lack of knowledge and your POV warring to include extremist, marginal opinions as if they were accepted mainsteam opinions. BTW, I have just added a lot more about the town's medieval history. Meowy 02:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheref vs Şeref

Someone is under the impression that Sheref is the "modern" version of "Şeref". Şeref is and was how it was written 500 yrs ago, except in Arabic script (which does have a "Ş" I am told) rather than Latin alphabet. In either case, it was never spelled "Sheref" in any script at any time, except in bad translations.--Murat (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ش = ş = sh. This is not really worth arguing about. Aramgar (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody could have written the word "Şeref" before 1928, the date of the introduction of the modern Turkish alphabet. Both of the Şerefs mentioned in the article were not Turkish, and the first was not even a subject of the Ottoman empire. This is the English-language Wikipedia, just as we don't spell the names of Classical Greek generals using the modern Greek alphabet, we don't spell the names of historical persons who lived in what is now Turkey using the modern Turkish alphabet. Meowy 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful about the correctness of using modern-Turkish spelling for historical places. The Mush and Hinis mentioned in this article are not the same as the modern towns of Muş and Hınıs - in the article we are talking about emirates that no longer exist. Meowy 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been almost a year since I made the above point, and nobody has objected to it, so I have changed the names to Moush and Hinis, but kept their wikilinks to the modern towns. The "Ahlat" spelling is also not correct, but books seem to use various spellings for the medieval emirate. Meowy 02:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic Non-names

It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names. Was there ever an official map with this made-up name(s)? Has anyone actuallyh called the place by this name? Any international documents? Not likley. It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions. It is getting rather silly. I will not accept it. It is just one more point to create nationalistic quarrels around. Seems like some have taken this as a sport. If there are such ancient names that may be of any interest to public in general, any value at all, then it should be presented in the history section.--Murat (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history" - if that is the extent of your understanding, leave this article alone. Meowy 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, these seem to be rather made up names in made up languages, of no or little significance, known to no one, and never printed or put on an official map. If there is back up then it should be produced. First sentence of the first paragraph of the article is not the place for such dubious trivia.--Murat (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand if you're joking. The first references to Baghesh/Bitlis in Armenian literature was in the seventh century works of Sebeos and Anania Shirakatsi, and even before then the city served as at an important strategic point for the ancient Kingdom of Armenia. The cities of Anatolia and Armenia long existed before the coming of the Seljuk Turks, which is unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, something they still do not teach to children in the Republic of Turkey. Quit acting as if the article has no reliable sources and if you still want to argue otherwise, take Meowy's advice, "if that is the extent of your understanding, leave this article alone".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bitlis = Badlis

Bitlis = Badlis : these two towns are one, there should be only one article, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the other article describes this article, and the references there are not adequate. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 22:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bitlis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430154407/http://dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=BITLIS to http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=BITLIS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914144150/http://www.bitlisnews.com:80/ to http://www.bitlisnews.com

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue with the new 1991-2020 normals

The records all being from 2010-forward suggest that the problem with Istanbul's climate normals is unfortunately also present here, so I'll look around to see how common this is. I don't know if the new normals are actually all that different here, as Bitlis is a rather small city. I haven't reverted them, but perhaps we should. Uness232 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)