Talk:Hrant Dink/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Hrant Dink (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	1 >>

I think that the panorama of the funeral procession is flawlessly integrated into the article. I sincerely appreciate the time and energy that has gone into this article. If only every entry could be as authorative as this! The discusson page is just as interesting to read as the article itself. mad props to all who have contributed. Eastcoastremedy 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some more info about the trial. I can help translate as well. -- anon

I don't know what to say. They killed him just because he was different. Now we must wait to see what will the state do and then we must expand this article because current article is really poor for understanding the importance of Dink. Deliogul 14:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope his killer is found and severely tried. I am loosing faith in the Turkish state. --Hasanidin 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure the state will do all that it can, and the Turkish society at large will support it. There is no need to lose faith :) Baristarim 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't agree with many of his thoughts and comments, there's no denying that Dink was a brave man.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink was a much bigger patriot than the so-called patriots who kept on accusing him. He fought -and fell- for democracy and an open society. Read one of his last columns (it is now on the Hurriyet website). Describing how he felt after the trial for insulting Turkishness, he likened himself to a pigeon, timid and on alert. He finished his article with "but I know, in this country, they do not harm pigeons". I wish he had been proven right. --Free smyrnan 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur... I was really shocked at the news. I had read many of his interviews and, all ideological opinions aside, I always had the impression that he valued his country very much before anything else. Sad... Baristarim 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also mention somewhere in the article his use of the name "Fırat Dink" with the reasons and the duration. I do not know the details fully. Cretanforever 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=193825 Here's a column by Yıldırım Türker about Hrant, but in Turkish. It's entitled "Hrant'ın hikâyesi" (Hrant's story). Shall we add this to the references? Okan 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit about his official name.. Baristarim 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous! Another casualty in the campaign of free speech. Still does not look like a good idea to open the Turkish-Armenian border. I hope this tragic murder will be countered by protests and demonstrations. And I hope these political or religious murders in Turkey will stop once and for all... Fedayee 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

People started to organize protest meetings. They are walking to Osmanbey (where Dink was murdered) from Taksim. Fedayee, there have been some wild periods in the Turkish dynamics but it is really sad to see the death of a citizen, an educated person. It is sad too loose a bridge between Armenia and Turkey but now he is death and our duty as Wikipedians is to honour him with a nice article. Deliogul 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In a country of 72 million, there are all sorts of people. There are already 70,000 Armenians (citizens of Armenia) living and working in Turkey, so I don't think that opening the border would result in Armenians getting shot :)) There have already been demonstrations... We shouldn't confuse the general standard of society with fringe actions of some groups/people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I was not confusing society with some groups/people. I was implying the work of some nationalists and Islamists by saying "political and religious murders" as there usually are controversial killings such as the death of a priest after Benedict's comments on Islam and then the death of a judge, Dink... Surely if more Armenians cross the border to do business or for any other reason in a country where denial of AG is widely rampant, tensions could arise. He was clearly shot for speaking up about the issue. If more were to cross just to speak up, i'd be afraid for their lives. Anyway nonetheless, I am glad and I must say a little surprised protests came up so early :) - Fedayee 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to be surprised :)) I am sure that all Turks on Wikipedia are also disgusted and shocked by this. Nevertheless, it is too early to say that he was shot as some sort of revenge for speaking up about Armenian issues, I included a ref that talks about a possible link to Hezbollah. Things are always more complicated then they seem in those parts of the world, but again, he could have been shot for those reasons. As I said, in a country of 72m, you would be surprised at what sorts of people there are :) Hrant Dink was not in sync with many of the positions of the Armenian diaspora organizations and he had a much subtle point of view about many issues, nor was he in sync with mainstream Turkish POVs. Mostly, as far as I could tell, he was much more interested in everyday human issues between communities, since he was a leftist activist back in the day. In any case, it is a very sad event. He was a valuable member of the Turkish society and in a unique position that bridged the Turkish and Armenian communities. Baristarim 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the protests would be amazing.

"Hundreds of Turkish citizens gathered outside Agos chanting “We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/19/wturkey119.xml

Video of protests: http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=474

I think that the OpenDemocracy link to an obit is legit... ?

I do not think that a ref about a link to Hezbollah would do good to the article... I mean, in the days to follow we are gonna hear various theories and analysis; from Grey Wolves to Kemalists and from Islamists to crazy fanatized teenagers... For sure Hezbollah has not expressed feelings against the Armenians (the recent Lebanese War, were a large Armenian community lives and where the President of the country is half-Armenian, illustrates that perfectly) and, as far as a know, Dink had not expressed any fanatic Christian ideas... Hectorian 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lool. Are you sure you are not confusing this with this?? :)) Baristarim 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, u are right, i do confuse them... I do not wanna look like tutoring anyone, but when most people say Hezbollah they mean this:). but still, had he ever been threaten by them, or by Islamists or by anyone else, apart from the Grey Wolves and far right circles? If not, it is like we are just confusing things... Hectorian 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

True. In fact, personally I think that Islamist possibility is more on the less probable side. The good thing with Wikipedia is that it gets updated as fast as the news and speculations develop, and the bad thing with Wikipedia is that it gets updated as fast as the news and speculations develop :)) You are right, any speculation at this stage is just that: speculation. The article still needs some syntax and grammer cleanup, so hopefully we will get around to it soon... Baristarim 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any self-respecting Turk is a Kemalist to some degree. I consider your comment an insult.--Doktor Gonzo 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Every extreme ideas are dangerous and those who blindly follow them are as well. I suppose I am not talking about the average Turk, so there is no insult, unless u want to. Hectorian 12:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting Kemalism is an extremist idea. Previously you were suggesting Kemalists are capable of doing this as if there is a Kemalist gang around.--Doktor Gonzo 12:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Every idea can turn to be extremist, depending on how it is used. I do not know who was capable of doing such an evil thing, but I am waiting to see the Kemalist regime's willingness to find the assassins. Hectorian 12:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's when they add extremist next to the word for that idea. Anyway, now we are getting close to the core of your suggestions, now you are questioning Turkey's "willingness" to find the assassins. Nice, nice, more honest, I am sure the next one will be better.--Doktor Gonzo 13:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the extremists (of whatever kind) do not usually add the word "extremist" next to the idea they believe in... I am questioning what the whole world questions. Time will show; I may prove to be wrong, or I may not. (The best one will come if Turkey will prove to be unwilling and incapable to find the murderers). Hectorian 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I don't think you are an extremist Kemalist. Feel free to use extremist. Anyway I am out.--Doktor Gonzo 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't be a Kemalist (extremist or not), for I am not Turkish. Nor did I say that u are extremist, cause your comments are not towards this direction. As I said (and find it quite logical), I am waiting to see what the Turkish government will do... Hectorian 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty much sure that he will get caught quickly, however it remains to be seen if he was a lone-assassin or part of some group. With the video footage released, he will be found pretty fast I think. Baristarim 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hope that he will be caught. The "lone-assassin" or "group" theories would be interesting to be investigated, but, one thing at a time... Hectorian 14:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

to be honest, I didn't know him before.. Now, i know him and it's too late. another peace dove has been hunted down. I hope this time, the outcome will be different than Ugur Mumcu's or Ahmet Taner Kislali's assassinations. Ati7 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Hrant Dink's assassination and the subsequent protests really represent a new chapter in Turkey's history. I think that Turkey is closer now to recognizing the Armenian Genocide than it ever was in its 87+-year history of denial. Seeing the public shout "down with fascism" and "We are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink" in Turkey on the BBC made me believe that the general public of Turkey is getting tired of the state-line propaganda regarding the Genocide and wants to know the truth about the events of 1915. The eagerness by both the government and the public of Turkey to find Dink's assassins also seems to show a yearning to normalize relations with Armenia. The only reason why Turkey hasn't done so is because of Azerbaijan.

Then again, maybe I'm being too optimistic... -- Aivazovsky 13:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away :) Turks are tired of journalists getting shot to begin with, and they also value the Turkish-Armenian relationship. From all the footage that I saw of the protesters and TV interviews with people and politicians, the main focus was this. I think that's why there were so many protests, not neccessarily because of some sudden existentialist upheaval - there were many such protests after the assassinations of many other prominent journalists. Plus, "Down with fascism" has been a slogan of left-wing circles in Turkey since the 60s, it doesn't have much to with one event or the other. Baristarim 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that there is a desire among the Turkish public to learn the truth about the events of 1915 and I still think that they're beginning to get tired of the state's position on the issue.

And of course they want to normalize relations with Armenia, there is no reason why it shouldn't be done - however, as it is so often done in the Middle East, Caucasia and the Balkans, the greater geopolitical conjenctures always take precendence over such issues that concern the people on the street. I suppose geopolitical games are also important for a country, so there is not much we can do about it I suppose, sadly. That's why it is such a great loss: he was a in a unique position that bridged the Turkish and Armenian communities as someone who had first hand experience with all levels of both societies... Baristarim 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the history of Armenian-Turkish relations, I would think that the government of Turkey should show the courage to work with and normalize relations with Armenia in the face of pressure by Azerbaijan. If the government really cared about what the people on the street thought, then they would see that they want to normalize relations with Armenia. I guess what I'm getting at is, if nothing else, Turkey should at least consider reopening the Turkish-Armenian border. -- Aivazovsky 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the chess games in that part of the world are pretty complicated. Turks also support Azerbaijan, but would like to also normalize relations with Armenia at a state level, so there is quite a conundrum. It is a vicious cycle with many wheels turning at the same time basically. That's why I said that there is not much we can do at the end of the day sadly... Baristarim 14:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also interestng to note that Azerbaijan has remained silent on the assassination. -- Aivazovsky 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the relatively recent incident with Burak Bedikyan (Turkish citizen got detained and refused entry into Azarbaijan, with Turkey delivering a note to Baku in the end) really made me feel fed up with Azarbaijan. They do not have the right to pick and choose between Turkish citizens. I feel that Turkey has bent over backwards to accommodate a country that does not return the favor or the respect. --Free smyrnan 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the intrigue filled world of global geopolitics :) Baristarim 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Article 301 of the Turkish penal code 2 Translation effort 3 Attribution to Islamists 4 Expand 5 Creating Armenian and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board 6 To-Do 7 Translation of Interviews and Articles 7.1 Why do they call Apo (Abdullah Öcalan) “Armenian spawn” rather than “Kurdish spawn”? 7.2 On the Armenian Identity (1) 7.3 On the Armenian Identity (2) 7.4 On the Armenian Identity (3) 7.5 On the Armenian Identity (4) 7.6 On the Armenian Identity (5) 7.7 On the Armenian Identity (6) - The 'Turk' of the Armenian 7.8 On the Armenian Identity (7) - To break free of the 'Turk' 7.9 On the Armenian Identity (8) – To meet Armenia 8 Religion 9 Armenian name 10 "Anti-Armenianism" link 11 Disappointing... 12 What did the gunman shout 13 Ogün Samast 14 Translation is wrong 15 Any source about this 16 Unofficial translation of the article he wrote the day of his murder 17 Hrant Dink interview on YouTube 18 Islamists? 19 Removal of 2 see-also's 20 Turkish-Armenian? 21 Lessons learned 22 About my last edit (including photos and a little bit more info about funeral demonstration) 23 Hrant Dink's funeral 24 Dink funeral placards 25 Bit of a mess 26 September 2006 charges for "insulting Turkishness" 27 Intro 28 Userbox for Armenian and Turkish users 29 Featured picture nomination 30 Scarcely motivated mass reverts 31 Peer Review

Article 301 of the Turkish penal code

How come they haven't decided to put this into question yet? -- Aivazovsky 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Who? Baristarim 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish government. How come they haven't put article 301 of the Turkish penal code into question? You would think that they might at least discuss it in the aftermath of Dink's death as he was convicted and imprisoned on it. -- Aivazovsky 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They had't ruled out any modifications even before this. However they are still waiting for a clear jurisprudence to be established. The issue that is overlooked is the fact that that article is styled upon similar articles in many European countries, and as such the important thing will be the caselaw that will be established. The High Court of Appeals is still establishing the legal precedences for it (the article is only three years old), and the problem is mainly with that. It is actually a bit more complicated than it seems at first sight. The case against Dink was the work of some busybodies, which further complicates things and it didn't help either.. Baristarim 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation effort

I would like to have an organized translation effort to build this article from his interviews. However, there are some issues: a) find a credible source (an interview) b) how to cite the translated information. c) organize it into distinct sections so that it would make a meaningful text, instead of an interview. Is it possible?--OttomanReference 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth the effort. I can help with the translation, just show me the text.--Doktor Gonzo 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article should express his opinions on Armenian-Turkish relations. People should know.--Doktor Gonzo 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find a good one, show it to me. I'm looking for non controversial things. First and most importantly, It should be respectfull to the person and his memory. --OttomanReference 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the URL of Yıldırım Türker's 'portrait' above, "Hrant'ın hikâyesi" (Hrant's Story)[1]. Here's another newspaper story on Hrant: "Hayatı, resmi olmayan Ermeni tarihi" (His life was an account of unofficial Armenian history)[2]. You may want to have a look at these --Okan 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just heard the news... I tried to create a new section about his assassination (about how it happened and the condemnations it got). However I am in a serious time crunch and won't have any time tonight. However, we still need some inline citations for one or two paragraphs. Feel free to expand or merge the section.. RIP Baristarim 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, wikipedia is demonstrating once again what a shallow news media it is by titling on the main page "Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish writer, is shot dead in Istanbul. Dink was convicted in 2005 for 'insulting Turkishness' by writing an article on the Armenian Genocide." Soon we'll have ties, shoes and pants carrying the brand name. :) Cretanforever 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this screenshot useable? Crowd protesting in front of the Agos paper.--Doktor Gonzo 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be fair use, however I would still check it since it is not neccessarily a critical commentary on CNN Turk itself.. I don't know. Re Cretan: Is there any way that entry could be changed? I really don't know how wikinews entries work. If possible someone can write a better entry and submit it to wikinews editorial staff... Baristarim 21:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Barış, I have no idea on how to submit an entry to the editorial staff and not much enthusiasm for ghostwriting for them. They could have at least put his photo. With the present page setup, it is highly likely for a newcomer to the subject to take Barzan Ibrahim to be Hrant Dink, which is quelque peu disrestpectful of what Dink stood for and it should have been the simplest of considerations at the first place. Cretanforever 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cretan, how is it disrespectful to what he stood for? Anyway, did you recognize how much El Greco and Barzan Ibrahim look alike? Weirrrrd.--Doktor Gonzo 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

loool. I agree with Cretan's point about the picture, and also tried to learn how wikinews entries to the main page worked, but wasn't able to learn anything.. I think that somebody "up there" just decides it and boom :) Baristarim 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution to Islamists

There is sentence on the possibility that the assasination was committed by Islamists, based on the account that the murderer were heard to say "I shot the non-muslim". This conclusion is superficial. I couldn't find the Turkish original, but if he used the word gavur, it is not only used by Islamists, but also many other including nationalists, as a deragotory term for foreigners or local Christians. In addition, while most Islamists have never been symphatetic to non-muslim minorities, the current political conjecture in Turkey hardly justifies such a conclusion, since many Islamists today are taking position against most of the anti-democratic measures taken by nationalist sentiments. So, while Islamist motivation is always possible, it is not very probable, therefore I suggest removal of this sentence. Balbazar 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the report of Kanal D said that assasin screamed "I shot an Armenian" not "I shot the non-muslim". Chief of Naval Operations 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that he said infidel, but since we are relying on eye-witnesses, it is normal that speculations are rife.. Baristarim 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can say anything. If they are not stupid, they wont show up theirselves. Because Turkey hates the murderers, so they will hide their names or try to show theirselves as "someone else" like Islamists. Im sure, Islamist did not do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.104.38.73

I've watched multiple channels and they were all reporting that the murderer said "I shot an Armenian" I don't believe it's related with religion.

(talk) 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Could be.. Listen, the assassination just happened. It is also a good thing that Wikipedia gets updated as soon as the news develops, but it can also be a bad thing - let's just wait a bit to see what will turn up in a couple of days and I am sure that it will be cleared up. Since none of us were there, we have nothing but the speculations to rely on. Since it was an assassination, it is a forgone conclusion that he knew his victim, and therefore knew who he was - which means that it wouldn't be surprising if he had said "I shot the Armenian". Baristarim 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some groups in Turkey with both nationalist and Islamist orientation such as the Alperen Ocakları. From what I understand, this guy is connected to such group.--Doktor Gonzo 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Expand

There needs to be a general copy-edit and expansion of the early life section.. There is a very good ref from Hurriyet (for Turkish speakers) that talks about his life along with some analysis of his early years [3].. It is very good, informative and is accompanied by very good quality critical analysis. For those who are interested :) Baristarim 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The early life section really needs to be expanded, particularly about his activities when he was young and some of the differends he had with the religious hierarchy of the Armenian community of Turkey. But again, most of the resources are in Turkish, so they would need to be translated, and summarized so that they are not copy-vios. It would be very nice since that would explain the later political orientation he would have in his later years... Baristarim 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating Armenian and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board

Wouldn't it be an everlasting Wikiedian commemoration in respect to Hrant Dink's efforts when we form a Wikipedia:Armenian and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, where we, Armenians and Turks, could share all the materials and thoughts belonging to our relationship? CeeGee 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be great. I mean, we have to show that we can also use words rather than bullets. Deliogul 10:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be very nice indeed. I was wondering the same thing, but I wanted to see how GR-TR thing would work out first. It actually had a good effect, IMO, since it succeeded in at least creating the impression that there was at least a spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia, and I have been noticing less edit-wars in GR-TR related articles. If there is enough interest and we can hammer out a good format for the board, then it would definitely would be worthwhile.. Let's clean this article up, bring it to GA status, and that could be a good stepping stone and a preliminary step towards the creation of that board.. Baristarim 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As "Hrant Dink" put it forward, the "poisoned blood associated with the Turk"; is too tick. It is Armenian choice not to live within the Turkish communities. This even applies to patriarch, whom many times critical to Hrant Dink. There is no second, follower, behind "Hrant Dink." That voice is silenced. The issues would be: a) Armenians would consider it as a plot against the recognition of genocide. b)only and only if Turkish members recognize the genocide would be credible and even in that situation they would always be under suspicion c) the 1915 meters-deep well is too deep to communicate other issues, even if they are minor to them. Sorry, my perception is that Armenians in that group would be labeled as traitor. To be fair their contribution would be minimal. The lost-gain analysis on being in the middle for Armenian is not equal to the Turkish. Armenians who are in the middle are even being assassinated. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Er...what? -- Aivazovsky 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he/she means, I think this whole topic is getting a bit too OT. While it would be good for Armenians and Turks on wikipedia to cooperate, that's best discussed elsewhere. Opinions on Armenians and Turks are obviouslys a big no-no wherever on wikipedia you go 203.109.240.93 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that we already have cooperation. Some of us work together rather well - and over time have come to see who is open minded, reasonable, and can reach a consensus, and who can't (and maybe never will be able to). Same with Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. Some of us are cross-members of Wikiprojects related to each others countries... a whole separate group could be helpful, but it could also languish as soon as a hot topic dies down. --RaffiKojian 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To-Do

• Views section needs major expansion.

I am willing to translate his interviews/articles if we can find a place to use them. --Free smyrnan 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Citation formatting

About 75% done. --Free smyrnan 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• A quick check with WP:WPBIO for format/style guidance.

Copied it to Talk:Hrant Dink/to do that appears under WPTR banner Baristarim 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Interviews and Articles

In an effort to provide English source material for editors so that editing does not become so conditioned on speaking Turkish, I decided to provide some translations. I assume that once the article is done, we can get rid of the translations, if they provide problematic for Wikipedia.--Free smyrnan 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do they call Apo (Abdullah Öcalan) “Armenian spawn” rather than “Kurdish spawn”?

Interview with Hrant Dink by Arda Uskan, [4], Vatan newspaper.

Your speech on the last day of the Armenian Conference was met with great acclaim and appeared on the media as “Hrant Dink’s speech made the entire assembly cry”. How did Hrant Dink, who had been considered persona-non-grata by some circles up to now, become an accepted figure?

I think what I said has been understood correctly. In Hürriyet, Bekir Coşkun wrote an article. After reading that, I said “I have succeeded”. I think we might have captured the same spirit with Coşkun. Coşkun wrote for the first time that his own grandmother was Armenian. It made me emotional. This is mutual therapy.

Is this the first time Bekir Coşkun wrote about this topic?

I think yes...

But the same day, we turn the page and come face to face with Emin Çölaşan. He is really provocative.

Maybe it’s a way of keeping balance for the newspaper. For years I have been saying that the Armenian ultra-nationalists and Turkish ultra-nationalists feed off of each other. This is an issue that is too vital to be left to them, because it will affect us and our children’s futures. For both Armenians and Turks... I say we are twin spirits, because half of me is from Turkey, the other half is Armenian. I am someone who lives the mental state of both parties within himself. Everybody sees this as a handicap, however, I know that this is a gift. The image of the Turk in the mind of the Diaspora Armenian is frozen at the time they have left. For them, this Turkish image will never change. Our difference is that we live here, together. In this society you have good people as well as prejudiced people. We heal when we live together with good people. The Diaspora Armenians are without this opportunity to live together with Turks again. If they could, they will reach a healthy mental state.

Are you being criticized by both the Diaspora and by some in Turkey because of these statements?

Let’s not generalize over the Diaspora, the activists in the Diaspora think that this problem can be solved by nationalist reflexes. When you look at Turkey, the society has been told a version of history when it comes to the Armenian question. Official history does not tell society that new and different information can exist, because what you call history is one of the things that make up a society’s identity. Official history cannot say about its own identity: “We’ve written this a bit differently, let’s correct it a little and you correct yours a little”. If it does, society then enters an identity crisis and starts to question; “I wonder what other parts of my identity are also incorrect?”. Because of this, official history has to insist on its version. To keep this identity, for example, they call Abdullah Öcalan “Armenian spawn”. Why “Armenian spawn” rather than “Kurdish spawn”? Because they know what Armenian spawn means very well in terms of the Turkish identity. They have created that meaning themselves.

Has this meaning been created knowingly?

Maybe at that time they had no other choice. After the events of 1915, the first reaction was to forget and to cover it up. This was true also for Armenians. But today, we realize that we cannot be comfortable without dealing with the problems that are at the bottom of our identities. We try to learn the truth of that time.

As an Armenian did you have personal discomforts as a child or as a young man?

The psychology of the minority has a historical background. It is a psychology that adds up as you live. One day, even without any external event, that psychology makes itself known.

You say that it is a sub-conscious emotion?

Completely so. My days as a young man coincided with the Asala period. During that period, we, Armenians in Turkey, used to go around with our heads hanging low. İlhan Selçuk wrote about it. One day when he was going up the Cağaloğlu street, he saw someone he knew by the name of Mihran Efendi, walking with his head hanging low and he wrote an article titled, “Don't bow your head Mihran Efendi”. We did not have external pressure, but we were uncomfortable.

And you couldn't talk about it?

We could not talk about it and also, those who did talk about it, did not say the things we wanted to say. For example an Armenian would stand up and say things like “the Diaspora is vicious, we are very comfortable here”. But this was not our reality.

What was your reality?

We were under a different mind-set because we were always regarded differently. You have left behind the sorrows of 1915. You have lived as a normal citizen during the time of Ataturk... You are about to enter a healthy period... One morning you wake up, just because you are a minority, the state has appropriated your wealth under the name of tax. If you don't pay, you are exiled.... 15 years pass... In one night, on 6-7 September, the houses and stores of minorities in Istanbul are looted. You say “Oh my god, nothing has changed.” The minority mind-set does not appear by itself. There is nothing more natural than the minority feeling unsecure. The child learns not to say “mama” on the street, tries not to talk in Armenian. But, despite everything, we do not want to go anywhere because this is our country and homeland. And this feeling of ours should be taken the right way. If it is, then we will feel that we are no longer “our Armenians” but “us”.

You are getting persecuted for an article you have written?

This is a great injustice. In that article I address the Armenian world. I say, “your identity is being determined by the Turkish phenomenon. You have shaped your identity in relation with the existence of the Turk.”

And you mean by the Armenian world?

Mostly the Diaspora. That is, the world that feels anger towards the Turk. I am saying “this is not healthy.” If you must shape your identity by the existence of the other, this will not save you. “Throw out this blood that poisons you,” I say.

The sentence you refer to is as follows: “The clean blood that will fill up the place that will be emptied by the poisoned blood left by the Turk, is present in the noble vein of the Armenian that is possible by Armenia. If only its possibility can be understood...”

I am saying “throw out this blood this poisons you.” Don't bother with the Turk.

You have written “the poisoned blood of the Turk”?

Not so. I say “the poisoned blood left by the Turk.” The place that the poisoned blood that will leave once you have managed to externalize the Turk; now you have a country called Armenia, fill your identity with that instead. I am telling the Armenian to deal with its own identity and to not feel anger towards the Turk. Can you persecute someone for that? Besides, I will not insult an ethnicity or a religion. For people calling for peace like me, there is no black or white. Life is neither black, nor white. This is what I am trying to tell.

Why did Hrant become Fırat? Your identity card reads Fırat, not Hrant. Why?

3 friends, including myself, we changed our names officially in 1972.

Because of that psychology you mention?

No. This is the first time I am telling this story. Istepan, Armenak and I were very good friends. At that time, during the political gyrations of Turkey, we were sympathizers of a left fraction and we wanted to work within that left fraction.

Which fraction?

TIKKO... We changed our name so that if something happened to us, our community would not get adversely affected. Armenak became Orhan, I became Fırat, Istepan became Murat. Armenak rose up to the Central Committee in TIKKO and died. He is known as Orhan Bakir. But we remained at the sympathizer level because I fell in love and got married around that time.

Did TIKKO end when you fell in love?

No... but me...

They did not want someone among them who was in love...

Maybe... But when we were changing our names, we had an elder brother called Sarkis Şahbaz. We explained the situation to him. We said “Let no one think that we are the sort of people renouncing their identity, we are changing our names to protect the community.”

Why did you not change your name back to Hrant officially?

It doesn't matter, I use Hrant anyway. Fırat was a name I liked a lot. I got the name from a role Yılmaz Güney played in a movie...

It was the name of the Mafioso in the movie “The Hopeless”. Did you used to know Yılmaz Güney?

Of course. We used to visit him in jail.

How did you meet him?

We used to have a circle of friends. Let it remain at that.

On the Armenian Identity (1)

by Hrant Dink Original is at Agos

About generations

7 November 2003

This week, with the 'The footsteps of the fourth generation' article on our back page, we carry to the Armenians of Turkey the debate that the Diaspora has been having on 'preserving the Armenian identity'.

Rather than just mention the topic once, we will try to keep this vital subject on our agenda within the climate of a healthy debate.

Whether or not it is possible to classify the Armenians of Turkey as a 'Diaspora', these debates concern all Armenians, whether or not they are called Diaspora or something else, including even the citizens of Armenia.

The Armenian world needs the process of questioning and self-criticism on how to shape its tomorrow and this process should no longer be missed.

The process that needs to be debated involves a number of questions.

For example...

Has the dispersion of the Armenians to the world been of use in preserving the identity until now? Is this dispersion truly a 'Diaspora that has lost and is looking for its identity'?

Can an Armenian world that has been scattered all over the world preserve its Armenian identity?

Is it possible to keep the identity alive without assimilation in this dispersal?

With what values should we fill the definition of the 'Armenian identity'? Are these values able to satisfy the needs of the age in which we live?

Is being spread around a real threat for the loss of identity? Does being widely spread also offer advantages for enriching the identity?

Where in the Armenian identity can we place being local and universality? etc. etc.

And even, a more radical question that some heedless people ask?

Is it necessary to preserve the identity and remain Armenian?

It has become necessary to 'live with fear' for the Armenian identity in the last century.

Especially, the fear of disappearing, of extinction was, until recently, the main problem of the Armenian world. This psychology persisted until the independence of Armenia in both Diaspora and in Armenia.

The people in Armenia feared that since they were not able to freely express their religion and nationality under the reigning Soviet regime and culture, they would eventually forget, and the people in Diaspora feared that they would lose their Armenianness under the majority cultures of the countries in which they live.

The first and second generations of the Diaspora Armenians did not especially feel a need to ascertain the continuation of the identity in the countries they immigrated to. The continuing effects of the trauma they had suffered was by itself a major identity and did not need an extra effort.

In the third and fourth generations, this situation changed drastically.

In 1915, neither the world, nor those responsible for the trauma did anything, but time was without mercy and had its own process.

A serious erosion in the identity began despite the traces of the trauma that had been transmitted across generations, Armenianness began to be forgotten and Americanization, Russification, becoming French began to accelerate.

It was in these generations that mixed marriages increased, Armenian names were left, language was forgotten and the church was neglected.

The atheist pressure that the church underwent in the Soviets was the bitterest portion of the unraveling of the identity, the Church that could barely preserve its own existence with the services that it could perform with difficulty, could no longer play the historical role on its congregation. However, the role of the Church in determining the Armenian identity was great. The weakening of the church was enough for weakening the Armenian identity.

I did the translation (and it is a rough translation, I tried to keep it as verbatim as possible and that makes it rather awkward). The original is at Agos. This series was the one that led to Dink's persecution under 301. I will remove the translations if people complain. I am now making it available here to allow other editors to distill Dink's views. --Free smyrnan 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Armenian Identity (2)

by Hrant Dink Original is at Agos

Role of the church

14 November 2003

In reality, the Church's existence only covers the last 1700 years of the ancient Armenian history of 4000 years, but the historical Armenian identity is almost completely filled by it.

Not much seems to have been left from the pre-church periods. What remains are customs that the people somehow never gave up and the Church had to accept. The Church that wiped out all of the temples, statues and figures of gods and practically all of the values of the pagan period, incorporated the customs it could not stop and took them under the roof of the church and turned them into rituals of the church.

Many of today's holy days that we celebrate are nothing other than pagan customs adapted to Christianity.

Since we are talking of what has been left from the past, it will be appropriate to mention how much of the Armenian cultural history is filled with religion.

The data that reflects this the best are the historical artifacts that remain in both today's Armenia and yesterday's Armenia (Anatolia).

Most of historical sites are churches, chapels, monasteries or Khaçkars (tombstones) that also belong to the religious realm. Again, today's museums in Armenia are filled mostly with items that belong to or pertain to the Church.

This is so extensive that the role of the church in music, the role of the church in literature, the role of the church in architecture, the role of the church in art need to be questioned separately and when we look at each, it is inevitable to reach the conclusion that the influence of the Church is rich and its role can easily be demonstrated.

All of these questions take us to this conclusion:

The role that the Church plays in the definition of the Armenian identity is so large that even today, when you talk of Armenians, the definition is one of an Eastern nation that has merged its ethnicity and its religion like the Jews.

According to the Orthodox view, it is not enough to say 'Armenian equals Christian'. It is necessary to emphasize 'Lusavorçagan' that gets its name from the Saint Krikor Lusavoriç who founded the Armenian Church as a derivative of Orthodoxy and to say 'Armenian equals Lusavorçagan'.

This is valid to such a degree that Catholic and Protestant Armenians that broke away from this church were not regarded as Armenian for a long time and were externalized.

But these externalizations were mostly at periods when there was no state and the Church stood in place of a state at the head of the nation and today no longer holds true.

The current period where there is a state formation is the mark of a new beginning. In Armenia, which claims to be a democratic and secular republic, freedom of religion is assured and whether the Church likes it or not, the Armenian identity will be subjected to new influences.

The multitudes of belief systems and sects that proliferate in Armenia are the mark of these influences.

One of these days, it should not be surprising that someone will be able to say 'I am Muslim but Armenian'.

The needs of the current age dictate that such a person will also wish to integrate his particularity to the Armenian identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Free smyrnan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

On the Armenian Identity (3)

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

Children of Kaç Vartan

5 December 2003

In the end, the Armenians are also a typical 'Eastern nation'. Therefore, the weight that historically religion holds for Eastern societies is also valid for Armenians.

The weight that religion has held in the life of the Armenian nation continued unbroken until the last century. Nationalism and religion completely intersected in this period, and the 'National Church' was taken to be synonymous with the religion and nationalism elements that is required in the making of a nation.

This was to such and extent that religion and nationalism came to stand for the same thing and 'one could not exist without the other'.

Vartanants Baderazm (the war of Vartanyan) that Armenians had with their pagan neighbors the Persians at the start of the Armenians' Christianity is one of the important examples that show the indivisibility of nation and religion.

'Vartanants' is translated in two ways in the Armenian world.

The first (and the correct) version is that this is the 'War of Independence of the Armenian Nation' against Persian rule. The second and the one that the Church puts forward is that this is a war in which religion was defended.

No matter which version one takes, it is impossible to deny the national and religious role the war of Vartanyan has played in the Armenian identity.

The two events that have left their mark on the Armenian identity are the events of 1915, and this war that took place on 451 AD.

1915 symbolizes victimization, 451 symbolizes heroism.

Heroism and victimization are, again, two main points of Eastern identities.

The meaning of Vartanants that has been transmitted to today points out that the Church's version of the event has prevailed.

The heroes that died on the battlefield resisting the fire-worshipping Persians rather than renounce their religion, while adding the necessary heroic element to the making of a nationalist identity, have also etched the importance of the Church indelibly on the identity.

In the end, the war of Vartanants, even though it ended with the defeat of the Armenians, has become a symbol of not renouncing religion and has made Christianity an unbreakable part of the Armenian identity.

The heroism of the Kaç Vartans (Brave Vartans) is a ritual that flows from Armenian history into Armenian identity, repeated continually.

In Armenian schools in the Diaspora and Armenia, if one wall is dedicated to 1915, the other wall is dedicated to the Kaç Vartans.

Nationalism independent of religion can only be seen in the last century. Experimenting with a 'Non-religious Armenian identity' is a product of the last 3 quarters of a century of the Soviet period. One has to accept that the success enjoyed by the system that tried to eradicate both local nationalisms and religious beliefs with the materialist philosophy of the socialist teaching is crippled. Even though materialist philosophy manages to remove some people from their religion, nationalism does not share the same fate. In the end, the huge Soviet disintegrates and these nationalist resistances turn into new and independent republics on the Asian continent.

The Soviet period is a time when, new cultural foundations are laid for Armenians, like other nations that have since won their independence.

In this period, the number of socialist, atheist and nationalist intellectuals increase.

In Armenian culture and art, works that are independent from the church are created. The Armenian culture and art shifts out of its local roots and meets with universal values. Artists that are able to think and create universally appear during this period.

Yes, it is true that the Soviet period has trampled the Church, but it has also led to the Armenian culture aspiring to universal dimensions.

Most of the Armenians today that live in Armenia are distant to the Church. Because of this, the Church has concentrated all of its energy on reducing this distance and to win back the social influence that it has lost.

Although the efforts of the Church are understandable, it should be accepted that nothing will be the same.

From now on, it will not be sufficient to define the Armenian identity with values from the past.

If life has scattered close to 5 million of an 8 million strong Armenian world all over the earth, they will not be exactly similar to one another. If they have started to have 'double identities', if even majority of the citizens of Armenia try to leave their independence and look for new lives in other countries, trying to jail the Armenian identity into limits defined by the Church no longer makes any sense.

It should be accepted that it is no longer possible to limit the Armenian identity with religious motifs and nationalism.

The flavors of the identity are increasing and it is needed to add new sentences to the definition of the identity.

On the Armenian Identity (4)

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

Theory of the practical identity

19 December 2003

It is the concept of the Diaspora that is the main reason why the flavors of the identity have increased. This concept that describes the dispersal of the Armenian nation to four corners of the world is a concrete result of the odyssey of forced migration that the majority of this ancient nation living together for centuries in Anatolia had to go through. The concept of Diaspora not only signifies the separation of the Armenian people from their motherland, it also signifies the physical separation of a people that lived together for centuries. It shows the removal of physical unity that is one of the elements of a nation.

It is impossible to deny that this will damage the national identity.

And unfortunately, the Armenian people have suffered this damage extensively in the last two centuries.

To understand the reflections of this damage, one should touch upon the symbolic role that Ararat has in the Armenian world.

Ararat symbolizes the longing for the physical unity that the Armenian people have lost.

But to simply define this feeling as a 'longing for a piece of land or a mountain' is not sufficient.

For the Armenian people, the shadow that Ararat casts, is the symbol of the existence of the Armenian people for the past 4000 years.

It is the pinnacle of an eternal existence that starts from the prophet Noah.

It is not just the past, but also the future.

When that longing is no more, it is thought that the identity will also cease to exist.

It is for this reason that in all the Armenian schools, churches, clubs, associations of the Diaspora and in almost all Armenian houses, it is possible to see a visual of Ararat or to come across its symbol.

Most of Armenian songs and poems echo from the Ararat. Ararat, for the Armenian world, is not just a distance that the inhabitants of Erivan see every morning, but a closeness that Armenians on five continents keep on their wall.

It would be unjust to say that the start of the Diaspora for the Armenians is just the forced migration of 1915. One should mention that Armenians, who are a typical Eastern nation, have faced towards the West earlier than other Eastern nations (especially Muslims) and the migration of Armenians to the West, for economic and commercial reasons, go back as far as the beginning of 19th century. This facing West has opened up a few entries into Europe and the United States through Armenian bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and these entries, in time, have led to settling abroad.

This Diaspora is equivalent to voluntary Diaspora that has formed in foreign lands and the role that Missionaries who worked in Anatolia have played in its formation cannot be ignored.

In the end, towards the start of the 20th century, it is possible to find Catholic Armenian in France and Protestant Armenians in the United States forming settled colonies.

The tendency towards the West of the Armenian people is an attribute of their identity and its only proof is not the migration to Diaspora. The real proof is the leading role they have played in transmitting Western culture to the East. Armenians have played a leading role in transmitting all of the modern reforms in the West to Ottoman lands, and have transmitted the developing processes of civilization in many fields, from art to literature, from theater to music, from architecture to technology.

It would be incorrect to explain this attribute of Armenians simply by pointing out that they are Christian. That they are a settled society for many centuries, that they show the behavior that city culture brings about is instrumental in fitting in easily with the West.

That they are able to adapt to Western values very easily plays a major role in the dissolution of the Armenian world's identity today. The sociological data offered by Armenians of Diaspora and even Turkey belonging to middle or upper classes sending their children to foreign private schools can be only explained by this fast adaptation.

But, the easy adaptation of Armenians to the West is responsible for the change (just to avoid saying loss) in identity.

Being of the Diaspora has brought a new dimension to the Armenian identity and has turned a large population exceeding five million to individuals with double identities. This double identity is not just being both Armenian and American, but the conflict of a new identity with an old identity and the dilemma of a theoretical identity and a practical identity. The theoretical identity is not forgetting the ideal of being Armenian and the practical identity is what is lived.

The place of the old identity is, unfortunately, nostalgia but the definition of 'old' here is not 'finished' or 'getting old' but 'not functional'.... It is not what is actually lived, but what is being kept alive with difficulty.

And the place that something that is being kept alive has is not part of the daily life, but moments that are being taken away from the daily life, each requiring special attention.

All the institutions in the Diaspora aim at keeping this theoretical identity alive. The measurement of success is the amount that can be transferred from the practical identity to the theoretical identity.

Sending children to Armenian schools, bringing them together at Armenian institutions, organizing dance parties for them, going to church, having cultural nights at associations, having music and folk dancing shows are the moments that are stolen from the practical identity.

What is bitter is that these special activities are not for living the identity, but they are for keeping the identity alive.

And finally, if one must make a rough definition....

Armenia is where the identity is lived, and Diaspora is where identity is being kept alive.

On the Armenian Identity (5)

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

West: Heaven and Hell

26 December 2003

In this age, to have a diaspora is not just the reality of those people that have 'received the blows of fate' but almost all the nations on earth. Globalization is turning the world into a more complex structure than ever before, and does not allow any nation to face inwards and to remain within its own ethnic homogeneity. In our time, where everybody mixes with everybody else and the world turns more mixed, multi-culturalism which has been discovered in recent years and is being promoted as the way of life for the age is a result of this admixture.

Today, every nation on earth also has a diaspora and to not being able to live their main identity is not the fate of just Armenians but all diasporas.

This age adds Modern diasporas that are formed by voluntary migrations to Classical diasporas that had been formed by forced migrations and brings all nations towards one another. Universality and citizen of earth are terms that are born to explain this movement.

But the closing-in that comes about with the moving-out is the basic paradox that all diasporas live through.

Members of diaspora that leave behind their national unity in their homelands try to at least preserve their main identity in their new habitat by taking refuge in one another and try to protect their identity that has been downgraded from national to group-wide by a local area that gets enclosed.

But this closed area is not sufficient to live the identity, and after some time, turns into the grave of the identity that cannot be lived properly.

It is true that different diasporas hit different notes.

Especially classical diaspora and modern diaspora are different in the fears they carry.

In the end, the former - like the case of the Armenians – have not chosen to be members of the diaspora but has had it forced upon them, and the latter is a result of the volunteering to form a new world for themselves. The existence of Greek colonies in Australia, Chinatowns in the United States, French bourgeoisie in Canada, Turkish peasants in Germany are typical examples of the concept of the modern diaspora.

And even within the same ethnic diaspora, different times and circumstances bring about different moods. For example it should be natural to see differences between the mood of the 1915 generation and today's economic immigrants out of Armenia.

The effort of the former to assure that their children marry Armenians can turn in the latter to marry an American at all costs and to turn American as soon as possible.

When thinking on the Armenian identity, it is necessary to analyze the diaspora realistically and the historical evolution of the Diaspora Armenians should be examined with care since this evolution plays a major role in today's identity crisis.

The forming of the diaspora that started two centuries ago with commercial and religious reflexes has many phases; it has turned into a must with 1915, and later into a secondary wave of immigration from Middle Eastern countries to the West, the continuation of immigration out of Turkey during the Republic era and finally after the independence of Armenia, into half-voluntary, half-forced immigration out of Armenia. All of these phases have different breaking points.

When we look at the picture of the Armenian diaspora today, it illustrates how destructive these breaking points can be.

It is thought that the number of Armenians within many former Soviet republics exceeds one and a half million, but with the influence of Russian and Slavic culture, a great erosion of identity has occurred.

On the American continent, again, despite a population of more than one and a half million, an extreme assimilation exists. On the European continent, a population of 800,000 is far away from the point where the identity can be lived when we look at the number of schools and churches.

It may be surprising, but the regions where Armenian Diaspora has been able to protect its identity best have been the Islamic countries in the Middle East.

In countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, more than a million Armenians live a completely closed congregational life within the limited freedom that an Islamic republic gives. These Armenians, with their many schools, churches, associations are able to preserve their identity to a degree that is in contrast with the diaspora in the West but unfortunately, with the insecurities that arise from the armed conflicts that these countries have been going through for the last thirty years, many Armenians in these countries have immigrated to the West.

We can form a conclusion from this example:

The wide freedoms and opportunities that are given to identities in the West have unfortunately been a catalyst for eroding the identities, the limits on freedom in the East, in contrast, have perhaps led to determination in preserving the identity.

It is possible that the call to prayer that can be heard five times a day in a Muslim country is also a call to the Armenian that says 'You are Armenian and a Christian' and this call is a stimulant that cannot be ignored.

It seems that the heaven on freedoms in the West turn into a hell for identities and the leniency that is given to identities in the West in the name of multiculturalism is not enough to extinguish the fires of this hell.

On the Armenian Identity (6) - The 'Turk' of the Armenian

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

The 'Turk' of the Armenian

23 January 2004

In our age where global and universal values overwhelm local values, the Diaspora, leave alone living the cultural identity fully, has to make a special effort to keep the identity alive a little.

This special effort always need special reasons and tools.

The Armenians and Jews are two classical examples of Diasporas that have these special reasons.

Both of them have the same special reason... To have been subjected to genocide.

Therefore, the right that humanity gives them to preserve their identity should be a little discriminatory on the positive side.

Truly, the Jews have used this positive right to full extent and made good use of the tolerance given to them for preserving their identity and transformed the title of 'God's chosen nation' that they have received from their religion to the title of 'Earth's chosen nation' that they have received from the world.

But the same situation has not held true for the Armenian people.

The world has withheld the sensitivity that it has shown to the Jewish Genocide from the Armenians and this has led to the greatest damage in the Armenian identity.

'The Armenians whose rights have been trampled' have tried to live their identity through 'insistence on demanding the truth', and this has taken us to the point where this insistence has become the main axis of the Armenian identity.

This insistence that was the method of continuing to stand, to not be wiped out for the first generations of the Diaspora, has turned into the insistence to make the world accept the truth for the third and fourth generations.

The mental position of the Armenian Diaspora is this insistence, turned communal.

The basic method of keeping alive the Armenian identity is to keep this mental position continuous.

Letting aside that the world still has not accepted the truth, what really damages the Armenian identity is that Turks are not anywhere close to doing anything about this topic.

When we do a comparison, it can be seen that the real reason behind Jews reaching their current levels is the compassionate role that the German people later took up after having genocided them rather than the Jews' own skill.

With the apology of the Germans who have accepted the responsibility for the Genocide, this nation threw off the trauma that it lived, reached emotional health and only after that, could realize the potentials of its cultural identity.

However, the traumatic illness of the Armenian nation still continues and what eats away and consumes the identity is this unhealthy emotional state.

When analyzing the Armenian identity, it is necessary to acknowledge the role the concepts of 'Islam' and 'Turk' have played on this identity.

After all, Armenians have shared a togetherness for over one thousand years with Islam and Turks.

This is to such a degree that one important separation of Armenians from Western Christians is that they have lived with Muslims since ancient times. While Western Christians mostly lived Christian-to-Christian, Armenians have often been side by side and some times together with Muslims and have come to possess a different experience.

As today's current debates keep on mentioning, while European Christians are newly adapting to a multi-cultural way of life that includes Muslims, Armenians, like other Christian peoples of the East (Assyrians, Chaldeans etc) have lived this reality, with its good and bad sides, for a long time.

Therefore, it is obvious that this togetherness with Islam that has lasted for centuries will have its undeniable role in the shaping of the Armenian identity, but what really shapes Armenian identity's structure today and behaves as a cancerous tumor in the Armenian identity is the concept of the 'Turk'.

The relationship between the Armenian and the Turk and their influences on one another are not of an ordinary level that can be brushed off with one or two words. There are so many identity elements that have been taken from one another over the course of centuries-long relations that it is impossible sometimes to tell one from the other in behavior patterns.

The togetherness that had been lived is of such a deep level that to label the disruption of this togetherness as treason is an argument both sides make. Against the Turks, who once called the Armenians 'the faithful nation' and later claimed that they committed treason, Armenians don't simply call the events of 1915 a mass destruction of a people, but point out that it also involved treason against the centuries-long relationship.

This is where the Turkish-Armenian relationship is here today: Armenians and Turks are both clinical cases in how they view each other. The Armenians with their traumas and the Turks with their paranoias.

As long as they do not break free of the unhealthy state that they are in, -- maybe not so much for the Turks – but for Armenians, it seems impossible to re-shape their identity in a healthy manner.

Especially as long as the Turks do not empathize in their views of 1915, the painful writhing of the Armenian identity will continue.

To conclude, the 'Turk' is both the poison and the antidote of the Armenian identity.

The real important problem is whether or not the Armenian can be free of the Turk within its identity.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Free smyrnan (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

On the Armenian Identity (7) - To break free of the 'Turk'

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

To break free of the 'Turk' (can also be translated as: To get rid of the 'Turk')

30 January 2004

There are two visible ways for the Armenian identity to be free of the 'Turk'. The first is for Turkey (state and society) to enter an empathic attitude towards the Armenian nation and in the end, to demonstrate that it shares the pain of the Armenian nation.

This attitude, if not immediately, can lead, in time to the 'Turk' element of the Armenian identity to be distanced.

However, for now, it is a low probability that this will happen.

The second way is for the Armenian himself to throw out the effect of the 'Turk' from his identity.

Compared to the first, this second option has a higher probability since it is more dependent on just his (Armenian's) will and initiative.

This is the way that should be taken.

How the Armenian world can succeed in this is completely whether it can look at the current situation with a new understanding.

For example, to look at 1915...

The Armenian world is aware of the truth of the historical drama it lived and this truth is not going to change with whether or not countries around the world or Turkey accept it today. Even if they do not, the conscience of the Armenian nation has already etched the name of what has happened. Therefore it cannot be the sole aim of the Armenian nation to wait for the rest of the world or for Turkey to accept this truth.

The time is already past to leave everybody alone with their lack of a conscience.

At the end of it, to accept this truth is everybody's own problem with their conscience. This conscience takes its base from our shared humanity – our 'human identity'.

To leave the health of the Armenian identity indexed to whether or not the French, the German, the American and, always, the Turk accepts genocide is a mistake that the Armenian world must abandon. It is high time to move away from this mistake and to distance the 'Turk' from its prominent role in the Armenian identity.

The many pains that the Armenian identity has suffered is enough, one should leave the pain from now to the so-called humanity.

It is a colossal waste of time that simply postpones the awakening of the identity for the Armenian world, which has locked its peace with its identity to the negative and uncaring existence of the 'Turk', to dedicate the totality of its shared performance to applying pressure on the 'Turk' via the world and to make him accept genocide.

The Armenian world should load the future of its identity with such concepts that have the drive to re-light the extinguished production capability of this nation.

It should be the main directive to make an understanding that will 'shoulder its own pain and if necessary, carry it with pride until Armageddon' dominant in the Armenian identity.

Otherwise, the Armenian world will have chained itself to the charity of others to accept the truth...

And that will be true captivity.

Those who think that when the Armenian world frees itself from the 'Turk' it will find an emptiness in its identity and especially that the dissolution of the identity of the Diaspora Armenians will accelerate are wrong.

There is a much more vital concept that will fill the emptiness left by the 'Turk' in the Armenian identity.

This new excitement that did not exist fifteen years ago, is now a candidate for playing a major role in the Armenian identity, above and beyond all other influences and factors.

For the Armenian world to index its future on the future well-being of this tiny country and the happiness of those living in it, will, at the same time, be a sign of the pains that disturb its identity.

It is very simple for the Armenian identity to be free of the 'Turk':

To not deal with the 'Turk'...

The new field where the Armenian identity will look for its new sentences is also ready:

To deal with Armenia from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Free smyrnan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

On the Armenian Identity (8) – To meet Armenia

by Hrant Dink, original at Agos

13 February 2004

The clean blood that will replace the poisoned blood that will be let out from the 'Turk' exists in the noble vein that the Armenian will establish with Armenia.

Translator's notes: This is the infamous sentence. I feel it necessary to insert some notes right here.

This is a play on the ending sentence by Ataturk in his address to the youth, the text of which can be found here. Ataturk's address to the youth is learned by heart and analyzed to death in school. Whatever reaction this sentence standing alone would draw is probably tripled by reflex because it can also be understood as a direct attack on Ataturk, especially put in the context of 'Armenians tried to take away our country, Ataturk made this country possible, this man is mocking Ataturk's words by turning them upside down'.

One problem with the sentence is that it is way too vague. Another possible translation could be 'poisoned blood left by the Turk'. Yet another could be 'poisoned blood bled out of the Turk'. Yet another: 'poisoned blood emptied out of the Turk'. Add 3 letters and write boşaltılacak instead of boşalacak and you could get 'poisoned blood forcibly let out of the Turk'.

These explanations are not to detract from the brutality of what happened. However, I feel that the non-Turkish speakers should understand what an awkward and vague phrasing this is.

If only its existence can be realized. (or less verbatim, If only its possibilities can be understood.)

Those truly responsible for this awareness are the leaders of Armenia rather than the Armenians dispersed in Diaspora. The main point is for Armenian governments to be aware of their responsibilities and to act accordingly.

However, when we look at the relations between the Diaspora and Armenia, one can see that the Armenian governments are not yet fully aware of this responsibility. Aside from a few fancy 'Pan-Armenian Gatherings', not even a functioning mechanism for 'meeting of Diaspora with Armenia' has been established.

The relations between Armenia and the Diaspora have been done piecemeal, sometimes by the initiative of the Diaspora sometimes by the initiative of Armenia and an institutionalization centered more in Armenia has not appeared.

Armenia should have, long ago, established a special and very powerful Ministry of the Diaspora. Through this ministry, how to embrace even a single Armenian who has been dispersed even to the remotest corners of the earth could be made a basic problem, and later be acted on, and projects could be developed accordingly.

That this has not been done is a big mistake. With this uncaringness, Armenia itself is not aware what a major root it is, let alone make those in the Diaspora feel it.

This shows that even though Armenia of course is worthy, Armenian governments are not yet worthy of the Diaspora.

The one on one relationship that Armenia will establish with the individual of the Diaspora will, without doubt, have a major effect on the identity of the Diaspora Armenian and will play a major role in the new sentences of the identity.

Today, the Armenian schools, language courses, social or cultural institutions, or all other collective acts serve the single purpose of carrying the Armenian identity to new generations and if possible to develop it. Towards this aim, millions of dollars are spent. In the end, what is realized, is a language that is known but not (able to be) spoken, and an identity that goes to church every once in a while and is content to do just that.

But on the other side is such a reality that it is impossible to not do what it requires.

And that is, that the most natural school is the moral dialogue that Armenia and the Diaspora will establish.

It is very important for the identity of the youth of the Diaspora to go to that natural school called Armenia once even if he has not attended these schools or churches.

Between the identity that a single visit to Armenia will give the youth of the Diaspora and the identity that decades of education and church establish, the former outweighs the latter.

It is not that expensive to try to see whether or not what we suggest is true. A small amount of money can suffice for a youth to spend 15 days of summer vacation in Armenian streets.

It will be seen how strongly, through the vein, the identity that such a youth receives within the space of 15-20 days spent in visiting Armenia even if he may have been rather distant from his Armenian identity previously.

From that moment on, it is impossible for the youth to forget his identity no matter where he is in the world.

That identity will have been pumped directly into his veins...

Therefore, organizing tours to Armenia for the youth is an identity forming activity of primary importance. These activities, no matter where, should always be given priority in annual programs.

The sentences of the Armenian identity that will be directly gained from Armenia are so rich that they cannot be put into words.

This situation is akin to a fragile pot-plant meeting its own soil, its own water, its own sun.

It is free to try... Recommended to everybody.

And this concludes, for now, my small tribute to my dear compatriot. I need to go to sleep now, funeral tomorrow. May he rest in peace. --Free smyrnan 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Would someone please clarify Mr. Dink's religious beliefs? His funeral, according to this article is being held in an Armenian church, but as Turkey is predominantly Muslim my initial assumption was that he was a Muslim. Thanks. -- Sapphire

In fact, he was a far-left activist when young and frequented many such people, so I am pretty sure that he was an atheist - nevertheless, culturally he will be buried according to Armenian traditions in an Armenian church. But the religious beliefs info would need to be sourced, so if someone has a good source, that would be useful. Baristarim 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If he was raised in Turkey's Armenian community, then he was most likely an Armenian Apostolic Christian. This may need to be verified though. -- Aivazovsky 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That his funeral will be held at the seat of the Armenian Patriarchate should be enough verification. --Free smyrnan 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Btw, if he was an atheist, his funeral would be a civil one (I assume that this can be done in Turkey). Hectorian 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OT, but a few words on that. The identity card shows the religion. The default is the religion of the father, written up when you are born. If you want to change it, you go to court. Heard of a few cases, aside from the slow moving paperwork and usual bureaucracy, no official sanction against doing that. However, the reality is, if you are simply an unbeliever, you don't really go to court to change the religion to "without religion". Besides, as a minority I am sure he would not do that. --Free smyrnan 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, i got what u mean; similar thing with the ID cards used to happen here as well, till a couple of years ago. But, as u said, the fact that his funeral will be held at the seat of the Armenian Patriarchate is enough verification. Hectorian 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not neccessarily for the funeral. My grandfather was also an atheist but he had a Muslim funeral: it is extremely rare in Turkey to do such civil funerals, and considering that he was such a prominent person in the Armenian community it would be seen as really weird if he didn't have an Armenian funeral. Particularly when there is not a huge movement for civil funerals in Turkey. The motivation there is not religious, but cultural. Many people see religion as a part of their cultural identity, which means that they say "what the hell" and proceed with religious funerals anyways just to keep in sync with the wider communities. I am pretty sure that he was an atheist, or at least agnostic, and he was part of TIKKO (Turkish communist revolutionary army of something), an illegal paramilitary far-leftist organization, when he was young [5]. I would not advise to put in there that he was an Apostolic Christian, because many of his biographies include information on acts that would contradict such a categorization and he criticized the overlapping of religion and cultural identity that had taken place in the Armenian community in Turkey. I just say let's leave it blank. When the BIO will be expanded and his life will be talked about in more detail, readers will be able to make their own minds I think... Baristarim 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He criticized the way the religious weight of the church stifled democratic process within the community. But seriously, religion and cultural identity, especially for a minority tend to merge to such an extent that I don't think he would have minded having a religion stated for him. Personally, after living in the US for more than a decade, I had taken to answering the "what religion are you" question as "Muslim atheist" - because there was enough difference in the cultural side of things to make me mention the religious background I possessed by birth. --Free smyrnan 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

People don't possess religion or religious background by birth: they will only have one if they choose to do so and assume as such. I ran into similar situations in the states, and even though in the beginning I used to say that Turks were Muslim "as a general thing" the same way French are Catholics etc and how I was a Muslim "originally" (?!), but after a while I said "whatever" - mind you, it was still a hard thing to do since saying that you are Atheist in America can raise more than just a few eyebrows and that was the only reason I was including Muslim ID for a while. But later I simply decided that I just didn't care anymore, it cannot be my problem if Americans have been taught to think of atheists as some sort of aliens. I prefer Europe and Turkey on that matter, States can be a really weird place if you are an atheist :)

As for Dink.. I am sceptical of religion by personal conviction so I might not be neutral on this, but stating his religion as X might really be weird when the info about his youth activities will be included. Even saying that he was born in an X religion family could be OR since we don't know if his parents were religious to begin with. I agree with the idea of convergence of cultural and religious identity for minorities, but for Dink I really think that religion was definitely not a big part of his identity. I sometimes go to Turkish cultural centers that converge such identities and as such incorporate mosques in France when I'm doing some "diaspora work" (even taking part in religious festivities sometimes), but it would kind of disturb me, if ever, a bio was written about me posthumously and said that I was a Muslim just because of that. :)) My TR ID card also says "Islam" when you think about it.. funny world... Baristarim 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned earlier your grandfather being an atheist - maybe this means you are freer of the cultural associations of religion. As for others, who come to atheism by conviction at a later age, the cultural associations and habits remain. I will say the occasional prayer after the dead when appropriate for example. I use it as a means of a moment of reflection on the person. But when I do so, I use the Muslim form, simply because that is the cultural norm for me. That is what I meant. BTW, I recommend Dawkins' "The God Delusion" - highly enjoyable. For Dink, when he was starting up Agos, he convinced the Patriarchate that a bi-lingual newspaper would be of use and gained their support. I agree that his political views probably mean that he was atheist, but he does not seem to have been anti-religion at all. --Free smyrnan 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean.. I don't think that he was particularly against any particular religion, but he definitely needed the support of the Patriarchate before he could undertake a project like that. Kopruyu geçene kadar ayiya dayi demek lazim :) Where I live in France for example, it sometimes amazes me the stuff that Turkish Imams of the Diyanet get involved in: Kebab store openings, accepting to be the "trusted middle man" in business deals between Turks, arranging legal assistance for Turks in trouble, taking care of administrative problems of some Turks etc etc :)) When I deal with Turks for business or for legal matters the Imams always show up at some point, it is really weird.. And mind you, most Turks where I live are definitely nor religious. For a minority, religion is an integral part of the culture, even if members of the community only show up at the mosque/church/synagogue for the occasional meeting.. Baristarim 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if those informations were retrieved to include in the article. [6]

I think that info about the capture of Ogün Samast was included moments ago. By the way there is a new article for him as well.. Baristarim 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw in the news that Ogün Samast was among the people the police had stopped and interogated (maybe i am not using the correct English words) shortly after the assassination, outside a metro station in Istanbul. And that they had not found the gun on him. It was on Canal D, and there was actual video about that, showing policemen talking to him. I cannot understand Turkish, but if someone who does, can find something interesting, it would be good to add this on the article. [7] Hectorian 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I am watching Turkish tv too but the news rolling in seems kind of hazy. What is for certain is that he is a minor and from Trabzon.. I will check the link.. Baristarim 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The link says that the photos were taken from the CCTV of the Akbank branch near the newspaper. The article says that the police's computers had found a probable visual match with a registered criminal from Sirnak, but that theory was later discarded apparently. The news is just rolling in for the moment, and there is a lot of commentary on Turkish tvs so it is hard to pick through the fat to find the facts for the moment.. Baristarim 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations on what it was about:). and a question (as if someone can answer...): seriously, what is the problem with Trabzon? first the murder of the Catholic priest, now this assassination... In both cases the murderers are from there. Hectorian 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems! That's exactly what the commentaries in the news are talking about, as well as many Turks I am sure :) As far as it is known in Turkey, Trabzonites have a reputation of being really hardcore - macho, mafia-types, all that sort of stuff. I don't want to speculate and offend any Trabzonites - but that's just the reputation that they got, rightfully or wrongfully. Very similar to the stereotypical images of Sicilians. In fact I heard definitely more than once Trabzon being referred to as Turkey's Sicily.. But this is practically all gossip at this stage I suppose.. What remains to be seen at the moment is if there is anybody or organization behind him. Baristarim 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A Turkish friend once told me that the people of north-eastern Turkey are rather religious... Maybe it means nothing, but when I heard Ogün Samast is from Trabzon, I remembered the murder of the Catholic priest as well as what the assassin of Dink is reputed to have said when he shoot him... Anyway, I may be carried away... Hectorian 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree Fad (ix) 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink was a Christian of Armenian descent, period. [8] --Davo88 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait for the religion info. Pls take a look at the other bio info that has been discussed right above. That bio made some hasty decisions, and is too general. I seriously doubt that he was religious to begin with and very most probably atheist or agnostic - even though he most probably was raised in a rather Christian community. His best Armenian friend was in the central committee of TIKKO (Turkish communist revolutionary army of something) that Dink was a part of for years when he was young. That bio really made a mistake showing this as something Muslim vs Christian. We shouldn't make such hasty conclusions since that would be too simplistic. Baristarim 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not extremely religious (not as much as the southeast for example), however a strong blend of religion and nationalism. Again, let's not give into speculation. We will know soon enough. Baristarim 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article that supports the fact that he was Christian. [9] -- Davo88 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm with writing he was born a Christian though. And the source being Reuters is as good as the BBC IMO. I found another link claiming he was Christian [10], he could have not been a practising Christian but I doubt it ever says he rejected these beliefs. I don't think people would mistake it as being Christian vs Muslim thing just by reading what his religion of birth/choice was. Every bio could state what a person believes in or doesn't anyway. Fedayee 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When such news organizations make bios haphazardly they can tend to have very simplistic views on the subject. This is an interview by him where he discusses extensively his involvement with TIKKO that lasted for years, and the membership of his best Armenian friend in the central committee of that organization [[11] (in TR though). Let's just wait and when the early life section will be extended, the final version would be something like "he was raised in a Apostolic environnement... He later espoused a leftist ideology when he was young and ...". That section still needs expansion. I just think that labelling him as a "Christian" would be too simplistic. However there is nothing wrong with saying that he was raised as a Christian when he was young, but my concern was that it can unbalance the article and give the impression that he was a Christian activist if that other info about his later life wasn't included. That's all.. Baristarim 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is such a thing as Christian communism. One can be leftist and retain the Christian faith at the same time. Even in Soviet Armenia, Armenians were given the right to worship to a certain degree (Nikita Khrushchev allowed Catholicos Vazgen I assumed the duties of his office in 1955). -- Aivazovsky 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the info in the early life section makes sense, but not the one in the infobox. Seriously, that creates a very big logical inconsistency with many other interviews he gave later on - i am not saying that he rejected any religion later on, but simply labelling him as "Christian" is way too simplistic, his adopted name comes from one of the characters in one of Yilmaz Guney's movies, whom he personally knew. I think it is best if this is developed in the early life section. I might be wrong, but it seems a bit more appropriate.. Baristarim 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clevelander, I understand what you are saying, but it is a real stretch. Please remove that info from the infobox; If that's the case, his earlier involvement with communism must be mentioned in the infobox as well - however that would really screw up the infobox and make it look really weird. let's develop this in the early life section. Baristarim 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he could well be an atheist, who is to tell? Fad (ix) 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided that it isn't worth arguing over. I removed the information from the infobox. Best, Aivazovsky 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean any offense either way. It is just that the news is streaming in and I am trying to run around related articles updating information and trying to expand them at the same time + verify new edits and fend off sandboxes et al! :) This article still needs expansion, so I am sure that everything will be covered in due time. Cheers! Baristarim 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns that we should be careful and not lead the readers to believe it was a Muslim vs Christian assassination, but we do not really have sources stating that he was an atheist. or do we? been a leftist does not necessary mean non-Christian... We know for sure that he was born as an Armenian Christian and we also know that he had close contacts with the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople (i do not know if he had extensive links with other Armenian hierarchs, but this is enough, I suppose). Apropos, we cannot "measure" someone's faith... a devoted Christian is not more Christian than me (that I go to the church only on Easter). since Dink was raised as a Gregorian Christian, since he had not ever denied that he was a Christian, since he had not said that he is an atheist and since none ever questioned about his religious beliefs (taking for granted that he is Christian, since, I am saying this again, he never said he had stopped being), there is no question about that... I suppose that's the end of story; his funeral will be held in the Armenian Patriarchate by Mesrob Mutafyan... We have nothing in our hands to say that he was an atheist... Hectorian 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and I said that I might have a different look on the religion issue, but I also think that it can work the other way: many people are raised in a religion, but not neccessarily continue to stay as such. It would surprise me if in any minority in the world people didn't at least keep in some sort of touch with the religious leader associated with the community. I am sure it will be developed in due time in the main. Baristarim 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, just read his articles on Armenian Identity. He talks of the religion and ethnicity having become inseparable and synonymous in the Armenian identity. I am not translating this stuff for no reason :). --Free smyrnan 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just finding the sources :) , I don't insist on mentioning the fact that he's a Christian. It will make people interpret what is going on as "a Christian vs. Muslim conflict", while in reality, a fascist Turk killed an Armenian... -- Davo88 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "a fascist killed a prominent intellectual"? :) Baristarim 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not according to the shooter at least... He said "I shot the Armenian". -- Davo88 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're an Armenian or a Turk, the guy who shot Hrant Dink deserves to remain behind bars for the rest of his life. -- Aivazovsky 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is even if the guy is given a death penalty that won't solve the true problem here which is the mentality behind this assassination. I think this event is, should be, a true eye opener for Turkey, it was for me.--Doktor Gonzo 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that, if anything should come from this, Armenians will no longer be portrayed as "dogs and traitors" by the Turkish government and media. I mean, you can only kick a dog for so long. In this instance, the Turkish government has been kicking Turkey's Armenian community since 1915. -- Aivazovsky 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion kind of went awry in the sense that because I asked a question the answerers ended up discussing why they wouldn't insist on stating his religion in the article. I can understand you wouldn't want to insist if there isn't clear evidence that points to a certain conclusion, but leaving the information out simply because you don't want people to interpret the assassination as "Christian v. Muslim" thing is kind of irresponsible. First off, it assumes readers are stupid, but secondly and more importantly it takes away from the reader's ability to fully understand Mr. Dink. I'm thinking of sending an email to Agos and asking, but I imagine they're grieving and don't want to bother them with a trifle question for a while. Anyhow, a shout goes out to those of you who have improved this article. Thanks. -- Sapphire 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

After a lot of debate, I feel I need to give my 2 cents here. I have information that I personally gathered about his faith and his affiliations. None of this information is found on the internet. Even some information found on the newspapers are lacking in details. First, the Armenian Orphanage was governed by the Armenian Evangelical Community (Church) of Gedik Pasa in Istanbul. He was raised in the Armenian Evangelical Orphanage (Badanegan Doon - in Armenian). Even though he left the Orphanage as a student, he still lived there. As an adult, Hrant Dink was in the role of leadership; first, as a youth leader at Tuzla Armenian Evangelical Camp and later as a Board member of the Armenian Evangelical Church of Gedik Pasha, Istanbul. After the 1980's he wasn't very active in the Church. His wife, Rakel, is still a very active member in the church. Her faith was evident in the speech that she gave during her husband's funeral. The following are the links: http://www.aztagdaily.com/Archive/23-01-07/index.htm and http://gibrahayer.cyprusnewsletter.com/index.htm?p=2, where Rev. Vahan Tootigian says in his message that he was a member of the Armenian Evangelical Church. Beenthere23 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Armenian name

Armatura added "կամ Հրանտ Դինք" to his Armenian name ([12]). Can someone who knows Armenian please translate this? Khoikhoi 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it seemed too long.. Pity we don't know all alphabets! Baristarim 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Կամ Հրանտ Դինք (gam hrant dink) means or hrant dink, because of the USSR, Armenians who remained in Armenia adopted a reformed Armenian orthography and Armenians in the Diaspora stayed with the traditional one. That addition is probably because of that separation as his name could be spelled two different ways. But I do not know which one he used to spell his name is Armenian actually. Fedayee 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I remember reading about that in Spelling reform of the Armenian language 1922-1924. We should probably spell his name in Western Armenian, as I'm guessing it was the language of his family. Khoikhoi 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He's from Istanbul, so he used Western Armenian. In fact, before the Armenian genocide, Istanbul or "Bolis" was the heart of the Western Armenian speaking world. They still learn it and use it now. Thus I consider the addition of the Eastern Armenian orthography unnecessary. -- Davo88 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Davo, Hrant Dink is written in the ame way in both orthographies. The one you added is wrong. The name is pronounced differently but it's written the same way!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't thought that it was a difference between Western and Eastern Armenian. Cheers! Baristarim 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Eupator it's pronounced an written "Hrant Dink" in the Western Armenian way as shown here in a press release from the Armenian Prelacy of Canada. [13]--Davo88 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenia's media is spelling it ՀՐԱՆՏ ԴԻՆՔ. But this is really trivial in regards to the whole article.--MarshallBagramyan 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what's going on is that the Armenian media is using the Eastern Armenian spelling of Hrant, which is a fairly common name in the Republic, and appears to actually be spelled differently in eastern vs. western, but then for the last name, which I have not encountered before (with or without the -ian), I suspect they are doing a straight Eastern Armenian transliteration. But he would have definitely used western and so I'd go with the Armenian Prelacy of Canada spelling. --RaffiKojian 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are all confused, the name is written the same way regardless of the orthography. The only difference is the pronounciation. The prelacy is wrong, they wrote the name the same way the pronounce it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen one with a "տ" in Western Armenian, that would make it Hrand. Everybody in my entourage writes "Հրանդ" and says "Hrant" as far as I know. I knew people of that name and that's how they wrote it and pronounced it, and they're Western Armenian speakers just like Hrant Dink. It looks to be an exception, with the pronunciation of the name deciding which letter to use, instead of what is usually the reverse. As MarshallBagramyan said, this is of course trivial. Does anyone have access to his newspaper in Armenian? -- Davo88 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Davo88 is right and it should be with a դ only. A տ can ONLY be read as a "d" in Western Armenian. He must spell it the way it originally was spelled in the article, and I am changing it.

Well, guys, I'm from the Republic of Armenia (where Eastern Armenian is the official language) and here the official news organs write and pronounce "Հրանտ Դինք". I know that Western Armenians say (and sometimes write) Հրանդ, but the fact is that right spelling for both branches is Հրանտ. I think the misspeling mainly comes from the official ID documents, written by non-Armenian officers based only upon owners' pronunciation. I suppose the most of 'Հրանդs' (if not originally named Hrand) used to be 'Հրանտs' some time. The name Հրանտ comes from the Armenian name of Mars planet - Հրատ/Հրատն. Հրատ is spelled the same in both Eastern and Western Armenian (Google doesn't find any Հրադ or Հրադն, though). So I support Eupator's opinion and vote for the keeping both Eastern and Western variants. On the other hand, it's not a vital issue for a common reader but a task for linguists, anyway, all Armenian readers will understand that Հրանտ Դինք = Հրանդ Տինք and the other way.

Armatura 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is how HE spelled it though. I have never heard of Western Armenians use Hrand, the տ in Western Armenian is never pronounced like a T. Davo88 and RaffiKojian are correct about it. Does anyone have a link as to how Dink spelled it anyway? -- Fedayee 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both Western Armenians and Eastern Armenians should spell his name Հրանդ Տինք. Due to a sound shift from Classical Armenian, in Western Armenian language <դ> stands for [tʰ] , not [d]. (Eastern Armenian is in accord with Classical Armenian for the letter <դ>.) Also, due to a similar shift (of alveolar stops) from Classical Armenian, in the Western Armenian language <տ> stands for [d] , not [t]. (Interestingly, in Eastern Armenian, <տ> represents the ejective sound [tʼ], likely a borrowing from other Caucasian languages such as Georgian.) Serouj 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a small comment to make... WP is supposed to be about verifying information, but I see no effort in the discussion above to (for example) check google for some Istanbul Armenian web site that mentions Hrant Dink to see how his name would be written by him. I just took a look at the Patriarchate's web site here, assuming that a news item dated Jan 19 would be about the assassination. I see this in bold: Հրանդ Տինկի. Is it his name? Another place to check would be the Internet archive, looking at Agos' previous web site, here. Can someone who speaks Armenian please take a look at these sites and come up with how his name should be spelled? Regards, --Free smyrnan 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

'Տինկի' is the possessive case of 'Տինկ'. So, now we have got 3 variants for surename (Դինք, Տինք, Տինկ) and 2 variants for firtsname (Հրանտ, Հրանդ). --Armatura 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be no confusion here. Again, the correct one is Հրանդ Տինք. There's only one way to spell the name Հրանդ in Armenian. In Western Armenian, this is pronounced [həɾɑntʰ], while in Eastern Armenian this is pronounced [həɾɑnd]. The reason why some Eastern Armenian papers are writing Հրանտ is that in Eastern Armenian this would be pronounced closer to Hrant, specifically, [həɾɑntʼ] (note ejective [t]). There is a similar reasoning for ք vs կ. If this is still unclear to you, then I suggest reading the Western Armenian language article. Serouj 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not some newspapers in Armenia, there is only one way to spell Hrant and that's Հրանտ. Հրանդ will be read as HranD not HranT (where the T is [tʼ]). The only possible justification of the current use is if it can be proved that he wrote his name like that...-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, can you please check here to see how his name was spelled in the Armenian section of Agos? The Istanbul Patriarchate web site spells his name as Հրանդ Տինկ here. If Agos also used the same spelling, I would appreciate it if the article could be updated. --Free smyrnan 06:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, there's no such Armenian name as Հրանտ. It's Հրանդ. Western Armenians pronounce this as "Hrant" and Eastern Armenians pronounce it as "Hrand". Eastern Armenians should call him Hrand Tink'. I don't know about his last name (it's not a common Armenian name), but his first name (which is a common Armenian name) is certainly Հրանդ. It seems like his last name is spelled Տինկ according to the Patriarchate (which would mean that <Տ>, capital for <տ>, is pronounced in the Western Armenian way - [d] - while the <կ> is pronounced in the Classical Armenian way - [k]). Changing last name in article to Տինկ. Serouj 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Correction. According to the text here, Հրանդ is used only by Western Armenians. Both Western and Eastern Armenians therefore pronounce his name similarly as Hrant (although in Eastern Armenian, the <տ> is an ejective - [t']). Serouj 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A) Հրանտ is one of the most popular names in Armenia. B) There is not ONE person in Armenia with the name Հրանդ. C) Armenians pronounce it as Hran[tʼ] (that is with a soft t), I don't know how people pronounce this name in other countries D) His last name could only be spelled starting with Դ. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eupator. I think we should go with the Patriarchate's spelling. But to answer the above: A) true. B) close: Nearly all Eastern Armenians living in Armenia spell it Հրանտ. C) close: Eastern Armenians pronounce Հրանտ [həɾɑntʼ]. D) false. A name like Վարդան is pronounced [vɑɾtʰɑn] in Western Armenian and [vɑɾdɑn] in Eastern Armenian. In other words, it's spelled the same in both, but pronounced differently. (Հրանտ/Հրանդ seems to be an exception.) Serouj 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been in contact with EA and WA speakers all my life and still am, both write Վարդան and pronounce it as [vɑɾtʰɑn]. I have never heard any Armenian pronounce the name as its written like [vɑɾdɑn]. My point remains that Dink's name should be written as Դինք or Դինկ . Still I don't like the use of the prelacy version, we should find out how he wrote his own name and stick to that.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vartan may have been a bad example, but you do find many Eastern Armenians using Vardan (e.g. do a quick Google on Vardan). A better example might be the name Դաւիթ which is pronounceտ [dɑvitʰ] by Eastern Armenian speakers and [tʰɑvitʰ] by Western (same spelling, different pronunciation). Similarly, Դինք would be pronounced [tʰinkʰ] by Western Armenians. If the name "Dink" is a foreign (relative to Armenian) name, then it might make sense to write it Դինք in Eastern Armenian; on the other hand, if it's an Armenian name (it's new to me) then I think it would be best to stick with the same spelling across the dialects and pronounce it differently (as in Դաւիթ, Կարին, Նարեկ, Պարոյր, etc.) Serouj 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah some EA speakers transliterate as Vardan, but it's written and pronounced the same way in both EA and WA. Yes, David is a better example you're right about that one. You could write Դինք and next to it say how it's pronounced in WA.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Patriarchate's version is what will be written on his tombstone... And I doubt that he wrote his name differently from the Patriarchate's orthography - the schools are within the Patriarchate's domain. But, if anybody wishes to investigate, I have provided a link to Agos' archives above. Searching through them should be possible. --Free smyrnan 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to search in the Agos archives but with no luck, it didn't help when the Armenian wasn't written in the unicode standard. Why would the Patriarchate's version stick? Wouldn't the family be the deciding factor? I don't know to be honest.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Armenians of Turkey are a community as defined by the regulations of the Lausanne treaty. They are officially recognized as a congregation and this congregation's head, as defined by the treaty is the Patriarch of Armenians of Turkey (literal translation of the title). The Armenian schools are recognized as congregational schools. As a result, the Patriarchate is involved with the running of the schools. Hrant Dink himself wrote against this BTW, saying that in a secular country, to have the Patriarchate involved with education was against reason. But, this is the way it currently is. Therefore, I am assuming that the Patriarchate is unlikely to use a different orthography than the rest of the Armenians of Turkey. Hrant Dink and his family were educated at schools over here. It seems normal to me to assume that they would use and would have been brought up in whatever orthography the Patriarchate uses. --Free smyrnan 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing which I forgot to mention, then I will stop talking so much on this particular topic of the name that I know nothing about... I think I just realized where your question stems from - because it really puzzled me at first... This is not the Diaspora, you see. There has been no discontinuity in the community life in the way that the Diaspora has had to go through. The Patriarch used to be the head of the Millet in the OE and was temporal and religious head. Then, during Tanzimat, there was some sharing of the temporal decision making by the Armenian National Assembly, but again, the Patriarch was at the heart of the Armenian community. Lausanne did not change the role of the Patriarch as a community leader. So there is an unbroken line of the community that has always been centered around the Patriarchate. I don't think it would be possible to visualize, over here, a school that is so broken away from the Patriarchate that it uses a different orthography. That is why I did not understand how you could ask the question of whether Dink would use the same orthography as the Patriarchate. Regards, --Free smyrnan 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through some of the archived issues of Agos through the link provided by Free smyrnan, and found this 'about' page in Armenian, in which the name is clearly spelled as Հրանդ Տինք (end of the third line). This should settle the issue. I've changed the article appropriately. - TeakTak 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-Armenianism" link

I removed the link to the Anti-Armenianism article. I can see how Anti-Armenianism can refer to Dink's assassination specifically, but not to his life as a whole. -- Aivazovsky 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aguably enough, the assassination shot his stature across the world. Just compare his article on wiki before and after his death which is kinda sad. The assassination itself is a big event and IMO is worth noting, especially since the assassin claimed to have said "I shot the Armenian". - Fedayee 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought he actually said, "I shot the infidel"... Khoikhoi 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, according to Hurriyet's eye witnesses, it's "I shot the Armenian" [14] Fedayee 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Other sources said he shot a "non Muslim" and he has gotten many threats through out his life. Nareklm 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No. That's plain wrong. I think it's a translation error or the editor of the foreign press purposefully changed it to "non Muslim". Many eyewitnesses confirm the shouting of "I've shot the Armenian!" in TV channels.

he said "i shot the armenian". it says in the hurriyet newspaper accounted to his secretary. 85.99.58.170 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be categorized as Anti-Armenianism. I am really ashamed of this event, it is more than anti-Armenianism to me, it is a direct blow into the conscience of this country and its democracy.--Doktor Gonzo 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur, but it should be listed after other see alsos that have a greater connection with Dink's life like Agos. Baristarim 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing...

I find it disappointing that since Hrant Dink's assassination, I haven't seen any major coverage of the event in the United States national news. Senator Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush got most of the press today. -- Aivazovsky 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly the US media doesn't report on the murder of "foreigners" with "funny names" unless the US government is somehow responsible for the death. I'd hope 9/11 would wake us up to the idea that there is a wider world we should pay attention to, but it didn't.--T. Anthony 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the USA but here in Canada, it's gotten a respectable amount of attention. They even showed the Armenian student protest in downtown Montreal today against the murder. It's also big news in the Middle East as it has been headlining Aljazeera for almost 2 days now. -- Fedayee 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Its received extensive coverage in the Spanish El Pais, most notably an editorial [15] that I found very insightful (the title writes "Without recognizing our past, never we will be able to live the present").--MarshallBagramyan 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The assassination wasn't covered in the US News at all from what I could tell. Nothing in the San Diego papers at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there were some American newspapers that mentioned it, I thought you meant TV news. At least the online sites of several newspapers mentioned it: San Francisco Chronicle[16], Los Angeles Times[17], The San Diego Union-Tribune[18], Houston Chronicle[19], Casper Star-Tribune[20], and a few others.--T. Anthony 10:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected; the San Diego U-T mentioned today in print about Dink's murder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What did the gunman shout

I have heard reports that he shouted 'i shot the infidel' or 'i shot the non-muslim' or 'i shot the Armenian'. Does anybody know which is true, as it is kinda important for determining the motive--Boris Johnson VC 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ogün Samast

Something just isn't right here. Samast shot Hrant Dink, but he's only a kid (17 years old). Somebody had to put him up to it. There needs to be an investigation. -- Aivazovsky 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it would be difficult for a 17 years of age kid to, at least, find a gun... (maybe not difficult for the USA, but definately difficult for Europe). Someone gave it to him... Hectorian 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's common for young adults to make these types of killings. They are the most easily manipulated. Someone put him up to it and there seriously needs to be a crackdown or this kid will be punished as a scapegoat while the possible bigger masterminds walk freely. -- Fedayee 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Younger are also used because they get lesser penalties. --RaffiKojian 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every person has a gun in Trabzon, where the boy is from. It is one of those cultural things.--Doktor Gonzo 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, he just didn't wake up one morning and decide to take the next bus to Istanbul to shoot Hrant Dink. He had to be influenced by somebody. -- Aivazovsky 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He certainly was and this definitely goes very deep, but I don't think a link will be identified. Nationalists are organized in various forms, they are diverse, they have close relations with mafia, various secret services, and the "deep state". They don't really have a single terrorist organization who would claim an act. Their murders have always been meant to remain unresolved because they serve many purposes at one shot: Silencing, removing obstacles, supression of divergent opinions, and, of course, provocation. Balbazar 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Presuming as other's have said that it's relatively easy for him to get a gun, I don't see any reason to assume someone else was involved. 17 isn't that young and young adults/late teens can and do carry out crimes for idealogical reasons. Obviously as with all idealogically motivated crimes (whatever the age of the perpetrators) a variety of people would have had a variety of influences in his life, but this doesn't mean he was directly influenced or simply someone's pawn 203.109.240.93 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAK the new Penal Code permits to sue and punish minors older than 15 if they are involved in such a crime. This arrangement is made because in Southeastern Turkey where we have many so-called 'honor killings', the 'duty' to kill is generally given to little children since they receive lesser penalties. So O.S.'s trial will be held by "Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi", the Criminal Court, like other ordinary normal adult criminals. Okan 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See my post in the talk of Ogün Samast about this. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that it is right. This was not an "honor killing" - those changes make the punishment of people who put the kids up to it harsher, not neccessarily for the kids.

As I said above, Trabzon is like Turkey's Sicily unfortunately... Baristarim 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said in the Ogun Samast talk page, here's an article that largely talks about his life. [21] -- Davo88 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation is wrong

Reference on the trial which is translated as "poisoned blood associated with the Turk" is wrong, the origial term is "Türk’ten boşalacak o zehirli kanın yerini dolduracak temiz kan" which means literally "The noble blood which will take the place of the discharged(boşalmak) poisoned blood of the Turk"

http://www.seslisozluk.com/?word=bo%FEalmak Please login to listen pronunciation. Register now if you do not have an account. 1. empty. discharge. ejaculate. cum. cream. exhaust. drain away. drain off. teem. 2. come. ejaculate. empty. to be emptied. to be discharged. to uncoil. to become free. to become vacant. to get sth off one's chest. to ejaculate. to come off. to come. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.179.60 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

According to Vatan (see translation above by Free smyrnan, a Turkish user) it's "the poisoned blood left by the Turk." -- Aivazovsky 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing the rest of the sentence, the trial is about the sentence not a part of it.--Utku a 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we had the entire statement in there to begin with. I have now added the whole statement as it appeared in Vatan. -- Aivazovsky 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its better than my translation. I think he refers to the hatred of diaspora and critisize the manner of defining Armenian idendity using anti-Turkism as main reference, and thinks it is unhealthy for Armenians. But the sentense is really awkward. --Utku a 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a better translation, please feel free to update it. I have to say, the Turkish sentence is awkward and is so allegorical that a literal translation is difficult to do. Perhaps something non-Turks may not be aware of: The sentence is also sort of a play on Ataturk's Address to the Youth, where Ataturk says "the strength that you will need [to protect the Republic] is available in the noble blood in your veins". Regards, --Free smyrnan 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Any source about this

A Turk from Turkey said the kid is already linked with an extrem right organization nizamı alem ülkü ocağı. Fad (ix) 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. I hear it is a both nationalist and Islamist group officially closed in 2000. Also a close friend of the murderer is reponsible for the bombing of a McDonalds store in Trabzon 3 years ago, forgot his name, he was also arrested and is being interrogated, he is thought to be the brain behind the assassination.--Doktor Gonzo 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a contradiction in Turkey to be an ultra-nationalist and an Islamist at the same time. Fad (ix) 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion has also been used as a unifying factor as much as ultra-nationalism has been. But it is quite rare to be ultra-nationalist and Islamist, I agree.. Baristarim 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The common point is "Ottoman pride". During the cold war, a fascistic ideology called Turk-Islam synthesis was propagated to suppress socialist movements. It had so much outer and inner support (because socialist movements were quite powerful) that it got very powerful and took deep roots. Only after the cold war, again supported by the West, Islamists got political and economical power, developed their own "Islamic liberalism" and refrained themselves from the fascists. In the meantime, as Islamists became a new threat to the system, nationalists got more secular. Yet, this Nizam-ı Alem group, which separated itself from grey wolves due to their emphasis on religion, and retained most militants from the cold war era, remains powerful. While Islamists are quite diverse, sometimes with strong intellectual emphasis and liberal opinions, many Islamists, at least in terms of mass representation, maintain hateful approach against various identities. Balbazar 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the Grey Wolves were behind it for three major reasons:

1) They're vehemently anti-Armenian.

2) They're a youth group.

3) They're ultra-nationalist. -- Aivazovsky 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Grey Wolves have reoriented themselves as a "mainstream" movement among the more nationalist groups since the end of the Cold War, which caused some splinter groups to appear that are more radical (think of it like IRA and its numerous splinter groups that themselves have split afterwards). However, the problem is that there is a misconception that Grey Wolves and more radical groups are very organized paramilitary groups: they are mostly ideologies to begin with (at least since the 90s). Most of the time people come together and express sympathy for an ideology, and even if they act together they truly act in small splinter groups whose "memberships" don't exceed ~10. Grey Wolves is not a simple youth-group: they are a ideological movement associated with MHP. But all these are very dynamic; and relationships, orientations and organizational structures can change very fast. It could be the Grey Wolves, but I don't think it is possible because they are directly associated with an actual political party that takes part in elections regularly: such a move can lead to the party being banned and they most probably are smarter than that. This is all speculation for the moment in any case :) I hope that u could follow what I was saying. Baristarim 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the International Herald Tribune article posted by Davo above, he wasn't involved in any sort of militant organization. This coupled with the information you provided refutes my theory of a possible connection with the Grey Wolves. Best, Aivazovsky 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have the wrong belief. There is a branch of ultra-nationalists in Turkey who are also Islamist. Groups such as the Alperen Ocakları. These people aren't fond of Mustafa Kemal and secular democracy neither.--Doktor Gonzo 08:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial translation of the article he wrote the day of his murder

To stay and resist

But if we go, where then?

To Armenia?

But to what extent could a person like me tolarete the injustice as intolerant as I am at this issue? Wouldn't I find myself in greater troubles there?

To go and live in European countries wasn't my style either.

I know myself. After three days abroad, I miss my country. What should I do there?

Ease makes me uneasy!

To leave "boiling hells" and go to "ready heavens" was against my understanding.

We were sort of people desiring to turn hell to heaven.

To stay and live in Turkey was our real wish and and also a must of respect towards all of our known and unknown friends giving the struggle of democracy in Turkey and supporting us.

We would stay and resist.

However if someday we had to go, then we would go like in 1915... like our ancestors... Without knowing where to go.... Walking on the roads they had walked.... Feeling their pain and agony...

With such a reproach we would leave our country. And we would not go to the place of our heart but where our feet went. To whatever place it was. Fad (ix) 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what 'issue' are you talking about? He says "İyi de, gidersek nereye gidecektik?Ermenistan'a mı? Peki, benim gibi haksızlıklara dayanamayan biri oradaki haksızlıklara ne kadar katlanacaktı? Orada başım daha büyük belalara girmeyecek miydi?", which translates as "Good but where would we go? To Armenia? To what extent a man, as intolerant to injustice as me, would tolerate the injustices in Armenia? Wouldn't I be in more trouble there?" Okan 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not translate it, I just copy pasted it. Fad (ix) 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can you all translate it? Fad (ix) 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I'm currently about 450 km.s away from home. That means, I cannot spare much of time for the Internet. Besides, it's a very beautiful piece of writing, I doubt I could keep the sentimentality of it when translating to English. I feel terribly sad when I reach its lines about Hrant being a pigeon. Okan 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question? Is the translation at Agos not sufficient and you would like another, independent translation? Please check this link: Agos --Free smyrnan 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink interview on YouTube

Hrant Dink appears in an interview for about 1 minute in this 6 minute short film on YouTube. I think it's worth a link on the External Links section. Before this gets to 3RR, Baristarim, can you please explain why you are reverting inclusion of this interview? Thanks. (FYI he appears 1:35 to 2:08, and from 4:22 to 4:32) Serouj 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This video is a trailer from "Screamers" and I've quoted what he said in the video here in the article. It is located in the "Armenian issues" section. Here's the full screen version found in the "Screamers" website, if you want to replace it. [22] -- Davo88 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Davo. Serouj 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, Davo88 added it early yesterday with the relevant quote and the reference to the video.. It is contextualized pretty well in that way with the part that refers to Dink and the relevant sub-section. Cheers! Baristarim 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there are actually certain restrictions on linking to YouTube, see Wikipedia:External links for more info. Khoikhoi 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no specific restriction on youtube currently AFAIK. However we do not allow links to any external content which violates people's copyright. This applies to a lot of youtube content as such, you should take great care when linking to youtube content. Taking a look at the content myself, I would say linking to it is not okay. I doubt whoever released it has permission from the copyright holder. If it really is a trailer as mentioned above, you should try and find a proper source for it 203.109.240.93 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamists?

In this site, it is claimed that he is killed by Islamists. Turkish media blames "ULUSALCI" people (nationalists) for the assasination. This people are generally not Islamists. But some of them support Turk-Islam synthesis. For example, killer of Abdi Ipekci is not Islamist but fascist. (Agca later announced that he was Jesus.)Paparokan

You have the wrong belief. There is a branch of ultra-nationalists in Turkey who are also Islamist. Groups such as the Alperen Ocakları. These people aren't fond of Mustafa Kemal and secular democracy neither.--Doktor Gonzo 08:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, all my ideas about the murder is a question mark only with the latest news.Paparokan 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 2 see-also's

I removed the following from the See Also section of the article:

• List of assassinated Turks
• Armenian Genocide

I did it because I don't wish to see this article devolve into a series of 'you did', 'no, you did' attacks. Links to both can be found from other see-also articles, if not, they should go there. Hrant Dink had absolutely nothing to do with assassination of Turkish diplomats. Please see the interview above for his feelings on that subject.

For God's sake, he is not yet buried... Is it the time to start bickering? That is what I am afraid of. --Free smyrnan 08:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously misinterpreted "assassinated Turks". Check out the page.--Doktor Gonzo 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now that the page is about assassinations in general. I thought it was a list of the Asala assassinations. Sorry. --Free smyrnan 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the part, "Türk'ten boşalacak zehirli kanın yerini dolduracak...", we should stick to Üstün Bilgen-Reinart's rendering, in the cited openDemocracy interview, that is, "associated with the Turk..."; and discuss the subtleties of the expression in a footnote. Because it's a more-than-one-way expression, it can mean "vacated by the Turk", "emptied by the Turk", "haemorrhaged by the Turk", and Reinart knew what she was doing by avoiding the danger of creativity in a translation. Cretanforever 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Şimdi bir daha görünce aklıma geldi, rahmetli çok arıza bir cümle kurmuş, ne yalan söyliyim. Bir cümlenin insanın hayatını bu kadar değiştirmesi bir Yunan yada Shakespeare tragedyası gibi.--Doktor Gonzo 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's use that. --Free smyrnan 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the sentences meanings may be multiple, but all of them are sharp, this translation, "associated to" does not have any meaning at all, also the rest of the sentence is missing, I think it is a non objective softened on purpose kind definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.214.190.149 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Please revert the statement, "the clean blood that will fill up the place that will be emptied by the poisoned blood left by the Turk, is present in the noble vein of the Armenian that is possible by Armenia" is not equally or even closely have the same meaining as the current "replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk, with fresh blood associated with Armenia", first of all the is a cencored version of the sentence, second, "associated" does not have any useful meaning, this is a multi-meanin sentence not a meaninless one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.214.190.149 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

NB: The "poisoned blood" referred to here belongs to members of the Diaspora. It is 'poisoned' with 'the idea of Turk' as the enemy. What Dink suggests here is to prevent the feeling of enmity hinder the need of establishing direct links with Armenia. In other words, what should be done (by the Diaspora) is to cooperate with Armenia for the well being of the Armenia and Armenians, instead of fueling the tank of enmity against Turks. This is what he means in this sentence. At least the argument is explained this way in his interviews and in what he wrote after this sentence is decontextualized and converted to an 'insult' to 'Turkishness'. Of course there cannot be any excuse to such a stupid crime, but I have to say that this is one of the worst ways of communicating this argument in Turkish (really an "arıza cümle", to quote Dr. Gonzo). A reference made to Atatürk's "Address to the Youth" just for the sake of rhetoric. Pity. Okan 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish-Armenian?

What does it mean?

"...was a Turkish-Armenian editor..." 81.215.110.49 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It means what Italian American means--Doktor Gonzo 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lessons learned

After this assassination, do you suppose the Turkish government and media will be more tolerant of the Armenians than they were in the past? They don't appear to be ready to recognize the Genocide yet, but I think that securing the rights of Turkish Armenians for now would be an important step forward for Turkish-Armenian relations. -- Aivazovsky 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was itching to get some stuff out of my chest. Thanks for asking. Firstly, I'll be really pissed if the Armenian nationalists, who as much as I know had no respect for Dink's opinions, abuse his death to promote their own agenda. That is as much disrespectful to the man as it can get. About the genocide accusations of yours, from what I hear and read Dink was a man who considered no subject as taboo and was ready to discuss anything. Only in that sense, only if both sides put away their dogmas and prejudices there can be a mutual understanding.

As for Dink's assassination, I personally see this not as a minority issue, it is a brutal attack on free speech and democracy in my country. Hrant Dink was, aside from his ethnicity, a journalist and he was murdered because of his opinions, because of what he wrote, not the first in Turkey unfortunately, I believe he is 62th Turkish press person assassinated in the last century. That's what bothers me.--Doktor Gonzo 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope not, a crime of an individual or a terorist organization must not be able to change any public behaviour in any way, while it sounds positive, it is dangerous, extremists can do anything to change direction of the mass, a remote is a remote even it works reversed. --Utku a 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I started to write something really lengthy in response to Aivazovsky, but I am not sure this page is the correct place for such lengthy expose. If interested, let me know and I will get it off my chest too, on my talk page.

I hope that it makes a positive difference, but I am not sure as of yet.

I think that the assassination is an internal issue first and foremost. Those who try to contextualize it by linking it to 'what the world will think' make me angry. This is a result of internal problems. You may find me callous on this, but what the Diaspora thinks is much less important to me than the betrayal my own Armenian compatriots feel. The cry of Rakel, Hrant Dink's wife still echoes in my ears: "We trusted you...". We need to deal, if we can, with this betrayal.

I also am not happy with characterizing this issue simply within the context of the oppressive state against the freedom loving people. (The classic leftist view). When football fans fight one another because one has insulted the other's team, I see traces and roots of the intolerance that did not let Hrant Dink live. This particular issue, of sensitivization of the Turkish society is very important and I am not sure whether it can be done. There are fears that the Turks must deal with before they can let go and let live. Let me tell you that the Diaspora, along with other external factors, makes this insecurity worse, but ultimately it is Turks that need to shake off these insecurities.

I think this is long enough for here. The quick answer is, I hope it does, but I am not sure. If you are interested, I will continue, on my talk page. Regards, --Free smyrnan 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, people are not going to feel more secure the way things have been going outside and inside of Turkey. There are a lot of things happening to the country, things that concern its fundamental structure - and you cannot blame people for not feeling as secure as Norwegians in their country. In fact, given the fact that Turkey is right next to Iran, Iraq et al + tons of other things, Turks have been holding out very good. Could have been worse you know. Secure? Are you joking? I don't feel secure about Turkey not becoming like Iran slowly by all those (inside and outside) who attack Ataturk's legacy, economy sliding back to shit, or the Turkish identity getting diluted with Islamist "Ummet" influences + bunch of other global factors. If I don't feel secure as a Turk who lived most of his life outside of Turkey and is relatively well off, I cannot even fathom how the lower-to-middle classes in Turkey are getting through the day. Again, Turkey is doing pretty well in context.

The murder won't change anything. If something will change in the society, Turkey's foreign relations, or the look of other countries to Turkey, they will happen anyways, or won't happen - they are dependant on much greater macrostrategic factors. Did Abdi Ipekçi or Ugur Mumcu change something? No. There has been liberalization and much greater freedom in Turkey since the end of the 80s - but that's not because of Ugur Mumcu and co: it is because the Cold War ended. Unfortunately, most countries and societies are much less in control of their destinies that they think or would like to be.. Sad world.. Baristarim 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "Turks should shake off their insecurities". If people have insecurities, there are very good reasons for them. That outlook is a bit idealistic/orientalist since it assumes that Turks are not smart and that they should be shepherded out somehow of their sleep. That's not true. If Norway was Iraq and Iran's neighbor, and there were fundamentalist religious people assassinating Norwegian High Court judges, Norwegians would be going crazy, and not just become "insecure". In Turkey we are used to all this stuff, so we are only "insecure" - if we weren't used to it, we would have already gone mad. Turks have a much more patient and mature attitude towards global politics than what other peoples would have if they were in the place of Turks. I mean, come on. There are no other countries in this world that border both Iraq and Iran. I think we have a right to be a bit "insecure" :)) Baristarim 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

>Firstly, I'll be really pissed if the Armenian nationalists, who as much as I know had no respect for Dink's opinions, abuse his death to promote their own agenda.

That is not true. The nationalists have always protested in respect for Dink's work and opinion. They protested when he was arrested, they protested during his trial and they continue to hold protests today after his assassination. There's a scheduled protest for tomorrow in Montreal which will be the second and it is jointly presented by all ideologies of Armenian politics. While the nationalists may have not agreed with everything he said, he was respected just for the fact that he had the stomach to stand up and use the words "Armenian Genocide" to describe the events of 1915. That is something few would dare to do in Turkey. I think after the murder, it is the Turkish nationalists that have no respect for his work.

Anyway IMO, Hrant Dink's murder could be an opening to perhaps warmer relations between both countries. It could also drive them further because Dink was working on building a bridge between both groups and now he is scheduled to be buried. It could go both ways, all I hope is for no more bloodshed. - Fedayee 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This I can agree. If it will have any effect, it can make the reproachment between Armenia and Turkey harder.. Sad.. Baristarim 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the major point of disagreement between Dink and the Diaspora was the question of reparations in the aftermath of Genocide recognition. He believed that the Genocide should be recognized for the sake of history, not political aims which may cause more problems. Dink also stressed that Disaporans should remove themselves from the hateful memories of the past and instead look towards the future. And, like Fedayee said, even though they disagreed with him on some points, they also supported him. -- Aivazovsky 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but this is a talk page to discuss the content of the article. WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Please keep personal discussions on personal talk pages (the reason I allow myself to recall this is not because of your opinions, but because it is making difficult to see what really is discussion on the article on this talk page - and, sorry, I do not have much time here to participate in any debate whatsoever about Turkey's future or, even less, about the Armenian genocide). Concerning the article itself, I was most surprised that suspicions immediately goes toward Islamists, although the press, today at least, is rather speaking about ultra-nationalists. Greetings, Tazmaniacs 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About my last edit (including photos and a little bit more info about funeral demonstration)

I don't have much time to go over it now, so can someone please fix the wording for me (if needed), expand the funeral and reactions sections and also provide sources if possible.Ombudsee 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink's funeral

I saw in the news that the Turkish media criticised a lot Prime Minister Erdogan for not attending the funeral. The official pretext was that it was included in his "schedule"; but the Turkish journalists were wondering what could be more important than the presence of Erdogan... Shouldn't this be mentioned in the respective section? Hectorian 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I'm very surprised that the Prime Minister couldn't make it. His excuse that it "couldn't fit in his schedule" was very poor. -- Aivazovsky 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I just found out, he could not make it cause he had to attend scheduled inauguration of Bolu Mountain Tunnel[23]:/. Also, what is he talking about? Hrant Dink's murderer is the opposite of a nationalist[24] (id est? can someone help me, please?)... I always had the impression that nationalism is not "such a good word"... And I recently had the impression that things were about to change in Turkey... Hectorian 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey calm down. I mean, I would have thought that I'd be the last one to defend Erdoğan, but in this case I guess I'll have to. The reason why Bolu tunnel is this important is, it's on a major route between Istanbul and Ankara, and will dramatically shorten the travel time between Istanbul and Ankara to 3,5 hours from 5,5. It took 16 years to build it, and just recently an Italian firm completed it, and it was scheduled earliear to open that very day, with Italian prime minister Romano Prodi. Could it be postponed? Yes, maybe it could, but I believe that the government had more than enough representitives in the funeral. I think the real one that should be criticised is the Turkish president Ahmet Necdet Sezer. When he's the case right now I really don't know where to stand. He had his pluses and little minuses during his term but I think him not joining the ceremony with no really stable excuses was not an option. Especially regarding that presidents' duty in Turkish system is mainly symbolic. He just sent a wreath to the funeral.

About calling the killer opposite of a nationalist. What he meant was the killer-guy was claiming that he was a nationalist and that's why he killed Dink. Then Erdoğan said that a nationalist would avoid stuff to harm his country, yet this is exactly what the Assasin did, therefore he's the exact opposite of Nationalist. About Erdoğan implication of nationalism being a good thing, of course he did! Though I definately have no sympathy for any kind of nationalism, almost any government in any country today will classify themself as nationalist (And I just used the world almost to be on the safe side, since I couldn't think of any direct examples that aren't. One should also regard that patriotism is only a cloak-word for neo-nationalism). Ask any of these governments if they are nationalists or not and they'll reply "yes" quite unhesitantly backing it up with saying "there's nothing wrong to love your country".

It's sad that politicians have to stand somewhere between an pushing-forward-intellectuals and pulling-back-uneducated, but this is how it works, and Erdoğan has a little to criticise in his actions after the assassination (Yet he still deserves some for the ones before it. Check for Article 301 more)Ombudsee 08:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya bunların amacı üzüm yemek değil bağcıyı dövmek, anla.--Doktor Gonzo 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Bolu tunnel is not important, I am saying that its opening could be postponed or delayed for some hours (and having in mind Prodi's interviews for the assassination, I really doubt he would mind (in fact, quite the contrary). Sezer is the head of state; he could had attended the funeral, but since he is a strong supporter of secularism, his role is mainly symbolic and he did not really have anything to do with article 301, this wouldn't be "news". On the contrary, Erdogan, who is a "moderate Islamist" leader of "a right-wing" party, he supported and has not abolished the said article, though he has the power to do so, should not use excuses to avoid being present... His presence would symbolize Turkey's will for reforms; but now, all what the world has seen is Turkish people's demand for reforms...

Not every country or government sees herself as nationalistic... And I have never heard a European PM ever holding that position; and in Greece (for which I know to talk about), nationalists are called the supporters of the far right-wing party (which, btw, did not even manage to enter the Parliament in the elections). IMHO, hearing a PM "glorifying" nationalism, is not a good sign at all... I have seen many people (and here in Wikipedia as well) calling each other nationalist, which is usually considered a personal attack. I do not know if in Turkey what Erdogan said was considered noble by the people, but in Europe it would never be considered that. For the record, I saw Mehmed Ali Birant (among other journalists) criticizing Erdogan a lot, wondering what kind of a schedule he has, and he cannot change it for such an event and why he is unwilling to attend Dink's funeral... Hectorian 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Erdogan should have attended the funeral and Sezer should have done a lot more than send flowers. I see it as a lack of real empathy and a lack of self-confidence, a fear that showing empathy can lead to either a loss of identity or start on the slippery slope of whatever hell awaits.

BTW, I attended the funeral. Ramblings on what I experienced are on my talk page along with a few pictures. --Free smyrnan 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Onu bunu bilemem ama Doktor'un dedigi dogru. Ayrica hiçbirseyin tartisini da tutturamiyoruz, bizim kadar duygusal millet yok. Efendim "hepimiz Ermeniymisiz". Valla adam yargilanirken kimse çikip boyle birsey demedi ki Almanya'da Turkler yakilirken veya Turk diplomatlar oldurulurken kimse hepimiz Turkuz diye yurumemisti..

As for self-confidence, identity or insecurity, take a look at what I had written above in the sections "lessons learned"..

As for "nationalist" things that Hectorian mentioned - Milliyetçi means patriot, not nationalist per se (as far as the translation of the meaning is concerned). In any case, words can have different meanings in different cultures, and we should refrain from analyzing them using standards of different countries. Baristarim 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I provided the link from Hurriyet above [[25]]. I suppose that the journalists of the newspaper know the difference between the two terms in English and they decided to translate it as nationalism. And we know what nationalism means in the English language. Everything else is just speculations... Hectorian 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose.. However, as Ombudsee pointed out above, when people say "milliyetçi" in Turkey, they generally use it in cases where English speakers would use "patriotism" - that's why it is never an offensive word in Turkey. But I suppose the line between patriotism and nationalism is too often confused in Turkey... Baristarim 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

İki kısa nokta: Birincisi, Türk diplomatlar öldürüldü diye Alman'ın Biz Türküz diye yürümemesi v ile bizim vatandaşımız öldürüldü ve bizim vatandaşımızın başlıca suçu/ayrıcalığı Ermeni olmak ise, o zaman hepimiz Ermeniyiz diye yürümek aynı şey değil. Bu eşitlemeyi yapmak, Türkiye'nin kurumu olan azınlık vakıfları için elin adamından mütekabiliyet istemeye kadar götürür adamı. İkincisi de, kimse biz Ermeniyiz demekle Ermeni olmaz. 11 Eylül günü öncesi Fransız, Amerikan ilişkileri tarihsel olarak en dip noktalarda idi. 'Nous sommes tous americaines' diye başlık attı Le Monde. Bu, "bugün kendimi senin yerine koyuyorum, empati içindeyim, acını tıpkı senmiş gibi hissediyorum"dan ibarettir. Elini vicdanına koy, başkaları da söyledi onun söylediklerini, ama o vuruldu. Ermeni olmasa idi, o kadar rahat şeytanlaştırılabilir mi idi (demonization) o çocuğun kafasında? Ve, 11 Eylül günü, hepimiz Amerikalıyız diyebilir mi idik? Sanırım Ermeniyiz lafından daha az tepki çekerdi. Bu sloganı ben olsam seçmezdim, çünkü halkın genelinin Ermeni sözcüğünü hakaret olarak kullandığının farkındayım ve yürüyüşe katılanların bu sloganı atmayacağını düşünürdüm. Ama okumuş kesimden bu kadar tepki alacağını açıkcası düşünmezdim. Ermenilik bu kadar kötü bir şey mi ya? --Free smyrnan 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, nationality and races are "social constructs" - therefore there is no such thing as "Turk", "Armenian" by nature - which means that you become one by association. O yuzden sorun "Ermenilik"in kotu birsey olup olmadigi degil. Olay niye boyle bir sloganin seçildigi - yarin oburgun "Hepimiz Kurduz" dense ne olacak? It is a social construct - which means there must be a willingness to be different. "Ee?" - denebilir: Eger Norveçte yasiyor olsaydik, no problem. Dunyanin Iran ve Iraka ayni anda komsu olan tek ulke biziz. Yani basimizdaki Irak nasil bolundu: imkansiz diye birsey yoktur Ortadoguda.. O yuzden ayari tutturamiyoruz diyorum. "Hepimiz Hrant Dinkiz" deyip isin içinden çikabilirdik. "Halklarin kardesligi" yalani gibi: "Halk" is a social construct that exists in opposition to other "Halk"s - which means there cannot be "brotherhood of peoples" by nature - "brotherhood of humans" is legitimate since there is only one humanity. Tabi cenaze sonunda biraz dunyaya mesaj verme olayina geldigi için bunlari da normal karsiliyorum, ne diyeyim :)) Baristarim 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabi olayin farkli yanlarina konsantre oluyoruz - o yuzden dediklerine katiliyorum. Baristarim 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Too much analysis, guys. If every action in this country had a pre-analysis, it would not be a developing country. Turks are emotional beings. Today, they are Armenians, tomorrow they are Kurds, and next week they become whatever is in their "blood". 1000 years of Anatolian mixing, there is a small piece from everything. --OttomanReference 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dink funeral placards

What do the placards for Dink's funeral mean? I can't read Turkish, unfortunately and the some of the sayings appear to be written in Kurdish and Armenian as well. I know some Armenian and I've taken and initiative to learn the language (I'm studying Eastern Armenian as that's the dialect spoken in Armenia and Karabakh). Best, Aivazovsky 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

two of them says that "We are all Armenian" and "We are all Hrant Dink" in Turkish. One other -I believe- says "We are all Hrant" in Kurdish, but though I'm quite positive about it since I can't speak Kurdish I'm not sure about it. About the other one (Mek Plorys hay enk), I simply have no clue. If you do, would you please explain that for me? :) Ombudsee 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Kurdish like Ombudsee said. The other is in fact Armenian transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Note the accented letter 'y' is a printing mistake which also appeared on several of the Kurdish signs at the march. This happens when there are computer encoding problems with the Turkish letter 'İ'. It would be nice if a correct Armenian sign could be found for this entry. Xemxi 08:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Menk poloris Hay enk" means "We are all Armenian" in Armenian language. Hevesli 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a mess

According to eye witnesses, he was shot by a man of 25–30 years of age, who fired three shots at Dink's head from the back at point blank range before fleeing the scene on foot. According to the police, the assassin was a man of 18–19 years of age. Two men had been taken into custody in the first hours of the police investigation, but were later released.[7] Another witness, the owner of a restaurant near the Agos office, said the assassin looked about 20, wore jeans and a cap and shouted "I shot the infidel" as he left the scene [22] and Dink's close friend Orhan Alkaya stated that the three-shot assassination technique was a signature mark of the Turkish Hezbollah.

The assasination bit is a bit of a mess. For example, re the above it first says according to eyewitness he was shot by a man 25-30 as if it were definite (and we now know the person wasn't 25-30). Then it mentions the conflicting age the police reported (which is closer to the truth). THen it goes to talk about two men being take into custody and released. Then it talks about another witness with a different account of the age. The witnesses should be grouped together and probably then the police report and the people being taken into custody. Obviously this also needs to be done taking into account current circumstances 203.109.240.93 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink was a great man who identified explicitly the guilt of: 1. Kurds 2. Europeans in the armenian genocide. e.g. The hamidian massacres were commited by the hamidian regiments which consisted of volunteer kurdish tribesmen. No one wants to mention that. He was a brave armenian, fighting for his cause in his homelands. That's why as a Turk I can say I am Hrant, I am an Armenian. My family is from Istanbul and Trabzon and there is no family member who was involved in the killing of armenians. I know no one in Istanbul who had such an ancestor. That leaves us with the only option that the genocide was commited by kurdish cavemen commanded by psychopaths Enver, Talat and Cemal, who were already convicted by ottoman government afterwards for their horrific deeds. The genocide can't have been committed by turks. Anatolian Turks are the original descendants of the Eastern Roman Empire and are a very developed and civil people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barisbarisbaris (talk • contribs).

Beware the troll :))) Baristarim 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

September 2006 charges for "insulting Turkishness"

To prevent a 3RR violation, this is a response to the dispute user OttomanReference has brought up with the following line in the "Prosecution for 'insulting Turkishness'" section (formerly named "Trial"):

The charge was brought against him after he referred to the massacres of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire as a genocide in a statement he made to the Reuters news agency:

"Of course I'm saying it's a genocide, because its consequences show it to be true and label it so. We see that people who had lived on this soil for 4000 years were exterminated by these events."^[1]

OttomanReference would like to change it to:

In a statement he made to the Reuters news agency:

"Of course I'm saying it's a genocide, because its consequences show it to be true and label it so. We see that people who had lived on this soil for 4000 years were exterminated by these events."^[1]

This loses context; I think a few extra words does not hurt to clarify what Dink is referring to. (and this is, indeed, the approach the original Amnesty International article takes.) Serouj 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I do not know who you are trying to say. However "301" is not prosecution of "GENOCIDE DENIAL". He is not prosecuted for saying there is a "Genocide". He has been saying it many many years. There is no time he said "THERE IS NO GENOCIDE". I'm working on this copy edit with good faith. The trials are about 301, 301 is already introduced in the text. That is the reason Ruters named it as "Harassments". If there is something that you know, such as there is a law in Turkish penal code a bout "denial of genocide" I would like to have my hand on it. OttomanReference 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one writing the news. Here is the quote from the original Amnesty International (UK) article:

"The latest charge against Hrant Dink was brought following a statement he made to Reuters news agency, in which he reportedly said of massacres of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire, 'Of course I'm saying it's a genocide, because its consequences show it to be true and label it so. We see that people who had lived on this soil for 4000 years were exterminated by these events.'"

You can read the article in full here to verify.

The Amnesty article clearly says why charges were filed again: for his referring to the massacres as a genocide. Now I didn't want to completely quote the sentence introducing his quote, so I paraphrased it. If you have a problem with my paraphrasing, then you can either suggest a new one (that doesn't lose the content of the Amnesty International sentence) or we can simply quote Amnesty, to be sure. Best. Serouj 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Text has already establishes his position about genocide. He is 54 years old. He is married, he has kids. His ideas are known for many years. He lived in Turkey with Turkish Penal code. I'm not going to defend 301, besides I'm far away from it. 301 is clear. The issues are clear. What you want to say or your interpretation or their interpretation; do not fit what 301 is. A "stupid group" used the 301 as a tool to harrash (open cases against) Turkish thinkers, including "Hrant Dink". They are not government prosecutors, they are public citizens however, this does not qualify 301 as what you want to say. Besides what "Hrant Dink" represented is clear. He was not crusading anything in Turkey, but only the well being of Turkish Armenians. Thanks have a nice day. --OttomanReference 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Amnesty International disagrees with your position: Hrant Dink's September 2006 charges were due to his mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, if you publicly talk about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, then the Turkish government may use Article 301 against you (as was the case with Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk). Anyway, you have not presented any evidence against including the full content of Hrant Dink's second charge for "insulting Turkishness" as reported by Amnesty International.

It's a shame that you (and other Turks) would like to silence even the words of a dead man killed for speaking those very same words while alive. Serouj 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch for civility please. Your last comment was way overboard. Focus on content, not people. Also keep in mind that "those damn Turks" spent the most time writing this article. I don't want it to be a pissing contest of some sorts, so let's not go there please. Thanks. Baristarim 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

301 has been explained tens of times. What you just said about the TR government is not correct: there are many books on sale in Turkey that advocate the genocide thesis. The cases stem from private complaints. Besides, I read that AI article, and it seems that it is their own interpretation. Therefore, if that bit is going to be included then it must be said "according to AI" - until there is a ref from the indictement. Baristarim 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is inappropriate (and uncivil) to have users who are actively removing (or down-playing/obfuscating) every reference to the Armenian Genocide in Wikipedia articles. I see it quite fair (and to the benefit of Wikipedia) to point out such malicious users who are working against free speech on Wikipedia. Serouj 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. This comment: "It's a shame that you (and other Turks) would like to silence even the words of a dead man killed for speaking those very same words while alive." borders on racism. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, however such categorization is definitely not appropriate. Those damn "other Turks" spent more time than anybody else improving this article, either by actual work, translations or updating the article as news rolled in. So please keep it civil, and don't categorize people like "that user from Turkey". If you have particular disagreements with specific users, then 1) if it concerns content, stick to content on the article's talk page b) if it concerns personal disputes, either use the personal talk pages or e-mail.. Thank you. Baristarim 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"damn "other Turks""

Don't put words in my mouth; I never said that, and now you should be watching for civility. It's a simple fact that the user (88.229.112.216) who removed the text "Kurdish language" was a user from Turkey (whether s/he's a Kurd, Armenian, or Turk doing the change is another issue) (see here). The user OttomanReference was clearly trying to obfuscate and downplay the Armenian Genocide in this article and the evidence has been documented above. Serouj 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's a shame that you (and other Turks)" is not appropriate, and those are your words. If you have a dispute with a particular user, settle it without resorting to categorizations like "you (and other Turks)". Thank you. Baristarim 14:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If one carefully looks at the last picture of "Hrant Dink" in front of agos, it is possible to see the hole in his shoe. Obviously life has a different meaning for the person who sit behind a computer with a $100 Adidas. Empathy is nothing to do with accepting or refusing the genocide. Some of us here for the respect to the deceased. Not for propagating an issue. Once again, I have multiple feelings and issues; my life my do not resolve around one dimension or one issue. "My blood is not dirty" with hate against another ethnic group. I respect "Hrant Dink" because he voiced universal needs, and lived a respectful life. Once again Diaspora would never cooperate with Turks, who Serouj is a good representative. Their mind is occupied with only one thing and see everything revolve around it. Serouj's current accusations prove what "Hrant Dink" says. If Serouj blames this page under represents Serouj position, that means that "collaborators" of this page managed to represent "Hrant Dink" effectively. "Hrant Dink" had many other dimensions than single issue, what Serouj represents. One criticism to the Diaspora, instead of spending millions on recognition activities, they should spend some money to improve the conditions of Armenians who are in need. Turks are doing fine, even with 301. There are 100,000 Turkish Armenians in Turkey. Thanks OttomanReference 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see what point you are trying to make. By condemning Serouj, you also introduce the Diaspora in the picture and generalize. I do agree that the prosecution followed after he used the term genocide. You claim he was 54 years and never said else. Actually, this is not so, he started his journalist career pretty much late, Agos is pretty much recent, a recent thing, and I don't see when before there was any of his statments in which he used the term genocide. Fad (ix) 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OttomanReference, it's not my opinion I am "propagating". If you look carefully, I haven't added any new content to what Amnesty International (nor Human Rights Watch) had to say. You can't have a more "neutral", a more "third-party" opinion than those two groups. Cut with the accusations of "profiteering" over his death; this is disgusting. Take his death for what it really is. Take the deaths of 1,500,000 Armenians for what they are. "Come to terms with your past" as Human Rights Watch eloquently put it. Til then, Armenians (and others who suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during the genocide) will continue to work towards recognition. Take care. Serouj 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Serouj, this is not some lame forum. Cut down with the racist and orientalist innuendo, and stop hijacking this article to make it a political showcase - the intro had become a real mess. "Come to terms with your past"? It is not related to any improvements that can be made to this Wikipedia article. By the way, since you have been pushing so much, neither the HRI or the AI use the word genocide - they only say massacres.. You still going to say more "neutral" or more "third-party" opinion? :)) Anyways, let's drop it... Baristarim 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"What the hell is this?" It is my answer to the gentleman (OttomanReference). If you have a problem with my answer, then you can address specific points of it, and not hurl baseless accusations such as "racist and orientalist innuendo" (whatever that means) and "hijacking this article to make it a political showcase" (whatever that means). Serouj 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1)I have never been a genocide denier, back at you 2)My objection is clearly referenced in my edit (see: Copy edit: parts of the the text which is already established (introduced)) 3) Obviously I did not open this thread and I'm not the one who accused myself keeping genocide out of the page. By the way didn't Fad promised to write about where and how Turkish civilians died between 1916-1918, Fad said it was end of the war. The article Fad voded for deletion is waiting four Fad's efforts. Spend sometime in article space instead of Talk page. Soory I have otherthings to attend. OttomanReference 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop that anti-Serouj and anti-Armenian diaspora tirade OttomanReference. The Armenian diaspora is mostly the creation of the Armenian Genocide. When people had to go through sufferings to that extent, the pain of leaving everything they had/known behind to try and survive on some foreign soil...and all that to be ignored and even forgotten is like the final nail in a coffin. Genocide recognition is important as Serouj quoted Amnesty, to come in terms w/ its past. It is something no one would wanna go through and hopefully no one will go through in the future. Put yourself in the shoes of the diasporans please and then make such comments. Besides, who said the Diaspora does not aid Armenia? There are plenty of fundraisers, non profit organizations, charities, etc that are there to help Armenia. Take that aside, private donors such as Kirk Kerkorian contribute millions every year. The Dashnaktsutiun and the AGBU have opened schools in Armenia. Dink was one of the Armenians who believed in peace between our nations, our peoples and now he is buried six feet under. And what is this odd thing that Dink wasn't put to trial after his mention of the Armenian Genocide? That is the main reason why he was arrested and IMO, that is the reason why he was assassinated. - Fedayee 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue is a bit deeper actually. The first time a complaint was filed it was after he had said "I am not a Turk - I am from Turkey but Armenian" - the second was for saying "poisoned blood" etc. So when you think about it, it was also for his opinions on modern-day politics that got him into trouble in the first place. The third time was for his referral to the massacres as genocide - but that case hasn't even gone to trial yet. So most of the heat didn't come from the genocide comments actually. Baristarim 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OttomanReference, it is quite simple, really. Why would you go through all this trouble to remove a few words (which remove the quote's context) if you weren't intent on removing references to the Armenian Genocide? (Those few words were "The charge was brought against him after he referred to the massacres of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire as a genocide"). No offense, but I think that if you were acting in good faith, you would have dropped the case after my first revert.

Hiding the truth won't make the truth go away. Serouj 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut down on the innuendo - if you guys have something to say to each other personally, please use your personal talk pages. Baristarim 14:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're putting this latest prosecution as if Dink one day came saying "Of course I'm saying it's a genocide, because its consequences show it to be true and label it so. We see that people who had lived on this soil for 4000 years were exterminated by these events" and the Government punished him for 'using the term Genocide' due to the Article 301. But that is not the actual case: Dink was punished formerly for this 'poisoned blood' article, and he was about to apply to ECHR for this sentence. However, in this latest issue, the prosecution was still continuing, they did not even start a trial. (Prosecution precedes trial, trials precede decisions, decisions precede appealing procedures up until EHCR in Turkey. You don't always stay arrested during all stages of the process, and Dink was never "arrested" to my knowledge.) So the last prosecution had not yet reached to a conclusion on the day Dink was assasinated. Under those circumstances, you cannot really be engaged in tirades of hiding the truth, testing the good faith, and the like. Trial and punishment for 'poisoned blood' article was something, and the ongonig prosecution about 'of course it's a genocide' was something else. (Hence the frustration of OttoRef, I guess.) But a common fact about these two incidents is that they were not initiated by the Turkish government, but by this "Kerinçsiz gang" of private lawyers. The Govt's unwillingness to stop providing grounds for this gang and overall hesitance to render the actions of this group impossible is worth harsh criticism on my part, but the initiators of legal action against Dink, Pamuk, Şafak and others were, in the last analysis, 'non-governmental'.

We would better see that the question is not constructed here as a Government silencing everything related to Armenians within the framework of a decisive policy of absolute denial, this POV is way more AG-centered than the actuality in Turkey; what is questioned here mostly is a Govt failing to provide the necessary milieu for the right to live and right to express his/her opinions freely for its citizens. Hope this clarification about prosecution/trial/punishment/arrest helps, because you -with your apparent confusion- seem to be really in need of it Okan 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To clear any doubt that his last two charges for "insulting Turkishness" were really for his mentioning the Armenian Genocide, let's let Mr. Dink speak on his behalf: "This is a political decision because I wrote about the Armenian genocide and they detest that, so they found a way to accuse me of insulting Turks," he said in a February 2006 interview with the Committee to Protect Journalists (discussing his second charge). Robert, Mahoney (February 2006). Bad Blood in Turkey: Nationalist lawyers take aim as an Armenian-Turkish editor treads on sensitive topics. (PDF) pg. 26. Committee to Protect Journalists. Retrieved on January 24, 2007. Serouj 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, all of those writtings were in connection with the AG. Fad (ix) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pff.. I doubt that the term "charge" could carry the load that you are trying to inject in it. The best I can do is remind you that being complaint, prosecuted, tried, and punished for a sentence; and being complaint and prosecuted for another sentence are two different stories in the sense of legal action. In Hrant's case, only the latter example was related to the AG, but you are trying to depict the situation as if he articulated it and received punishment.

Today, I read in a paper that a certain local newspaper coloumnist in Sinop complained for the little banners carried in the funeral. Arguing that these banners 'insult Turkishness', he wanted their carriers to be punished by the 301. If I saw a HRW report indicating that people were imprisoned because they carried these banners, I'd hardly be surprised. And finally, I frankly don't want to read any grand discourse on hiding/seeking the truth raised by you guys given that you are trying to pack every incident in the same baggage for the sake of your own arguments regardless of whether they are the same or different cases. Okan 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has become a mess, and it no longer gives a summary of his life. It resembles a newscast. Some people should seriously cut down on political acitivism and stop trying to hijack the article. Besides, he was not prosecuted three times for his statements about the ag, please read his bio on the Agos newspaper.. Baristarim 14:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what the vast majority of human rights groups and journalism organizations think (e.g. see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Internation Press Institute). Even Dink himself, while talking about his second conviction of "insulting Turkishness" is quoted in the article as saying: "This is a political decision because I wrote about the Armenian genocide and they detest that, so they found a way to accuse me of insulting Turks." Serouj 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Take a look at my reply to Fedayee above. The issue is much more subtle than that. Listen, let's just keep the innuendos and Turkey-bashing to a minimum, and actually concentrate on improving the article. The early life section still needs a lot of expansion. This article shouldn't turn into a newscast - it is a bio. I hope that you understand what I am trying to say. Baristarim 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just quoted Dink himself saying that his second prosecution was really about his speaking of the Armenian Genocide, and yet you're still in denial? "Not quite"? The majority of human rights groups and journalism groups attribute his prosecution due to his speaking about the Armenian Genocide:

"Dink was best known for his writing and public statements about the massacres of Armenians in southern Anatolia at the end of the Ottoman Empire, which remains one of the most controversial and emotionally charged issues in Turkey today. Dink had faced prosecution for his views and had reportedly also received death threats." Human Rights Watch

"Best known for his willingness to debate openly and critically issues of Armenian identity and official versions of history in Turkey relating to the massacres of Armenians in 1915, Dink also wrote widely on issues of democratisation and human rights." Amnesty International

"Dink was a popular journalist who has faced legal problems for his articles about the massacre of Armenians during the First World War. These comments have frequently tested harsh Turkish restrictions on discussing this topic, which prohibit "insulting Turkishness." In July, Dink lost an appeal over a suspended six-month prison sentence handed down for an article discussing the massacre." International Press Institute Serouj 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation is thus: The nationalists wanted to get Hrant Dink on his writings on the Armenian Genocide. They did not see a way of doing that. Therefore they went after him using something else he wrote, about the blood of Armenians poisoned by their hate of the Turk. That is also what Hrant Dink wrote: "because I wrote about the Armenian genocide and they detest that, so they found a way to accuse me of insulting Turks." Many people are confused by the situation, also some journalists. What the International Press Institute wrote is simply wrong. Read the several articles that Hrant Dink wrote about the case, or other articles by other authors, most of which got it right. Hevesli 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Many people are confused by the situation, also some journalists." And therefore we should trust Hevesli of Wikipedia? The same one who downplayed the Armenian Genocide by changing the Armenian Genocide link and text ("1915-17 massacres of Armenians") to the link Ottoman Armenian casualties and the text "1915-1917 casualties of Armenians"? A categorical Genocide denier? Thank you very much for you insight, but I'd rather believe what the vast majority of international human rights groups (such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) and journalism organizations (such as the International Press Institute]) have to say. Serouj 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the link to Armenian Genocide but moved it to the word "genocide". I think my edit made sentence more logical and better for its understanding. You may not be agreeable but is not reason for starting insulting and name calling. Please to keep this page free from political bickering. Hevesli 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor Hevesli only tried to help keeping Serouj from copying mistake. Hevesli thought that maybe Serouj would believe Hrant Dink's own words more than the vast majority of international human rights groups. Perhaps Serouj should read this article and this one which also explains that Reuters made mistake. Journalists are humans and make mistakes. If thousand international human rights groups copy mistake, mistake is still mistake. Hevesli 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I wonder when Serouj reverted my edit saying Not according to the two articles cited, did he read both of them? I read this: "Best known for his willingness to debate openly and critically issues of Armenian identity and official versions of history in Turkey relating to the massacres of Armenians in 1915, Dink also wrote widely on issues of democratisation and human rights." This is the Hrant Dink I know. What is the purpose served to narrow this down to only "public statements and writings referring to the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as 'genocide'"? Are we trying to write an article about the person Hrant Dink, or are we trying to use his murder to forward a political agenda? Hevesli 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We are presenting Hrant Dink; his prosecution had a political agenda which must be mentioned, as is mentioned by the vast majority of human rights and journalism org's. Re the quote you gave ""Best known for his willingness to debate openly and critically issues of Armenian identity and official versions of history in Turkey relating to the massacres of Armenians in 1915", that's exactly what we say in the article: "He was best known for his public statements and writings referring to the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as "genocide" — one of the most "controversial" issues in Turkey today." (having incorporated elements from the other article cited, too.) We're talking about what he was "best known" for and the article is in accord with the quotes presented (and indeed, in accord with the vast majority of human rights org's). Serouj 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed neo-fascist from the intro.. I know that people are doing their best to improve the article and all, but let's please not confuse notions if we want this article to a good encyclopedic article. I still think that some of the words used throughout the article are not correct, but we can deal with them in due time. Baristarim 15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be separate articles Hrant Dink and Hrant Dink assassination just like John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy assassination. Hevesli 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone read this? [26] I'm adding this on Laciner page, if there was still any evidences needed to support that Laciner is one of a psychiatric cases, a racist. No further evidences is needed. Fad (ix) 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Indeed, that rant was written by a deranged lunatic.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2007: 1) dehumanization ("insulting Turkishness"), 2) killing and 3) denial.

1915: 1) dehumanization ("internal enemies"), 2) killing and 3) denial

Pattern? My thoughts Serouj 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen... Isn't there anyway to cut down on the innuendo? The same guy who commanded the murder of Dink also threatened Orhan Pamuk. Keep that in mind as well. In any case, please let's focus on improving the article. Thanks.. Baristarim 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it sad that Sedat Laçiner would compare someone like Hrant Dink (a human rights advocate who strengthened Turkish-Armenian relations) to of all people, Talat Pasha (the very man responsible for the Armenian Genocide). I'm also surprised, quite frankly that, in light of the assassination the Journal of the Turkish Weekly has not made an effort to reverse their anti-Armenian material. For example, we still see an article on the website that explains how the "Ottoman experience proves that anti-Semitism is an 'old Armenian habit'." [27] (also written by Laçiner) -- Aivazovsky 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it only shows the world who we're dealing with and who are the leaders of the denialist camp.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Turkey will eventually recognize the genocide by the demand of the public. Since the outpour I've seen in the aftermath of Dink's assassination, I'm almost certain that this will happen. If we see Turks marching in the streets with signs reading "We are all Armenians" and "301 is the murderer", then I am optimistic that someday they will be marching for Genocide recogition and for their government to speak the truth about the events of 1915 once and for all. The wall is beginning to crack and the Turkish people are making their voice heard. They want to restore their relations with the Armenians and establish peace. -- Aivazovsky 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The people in Turkey who want an open discussion of the events of 1915 are not helped by the outside pressure that the Republic of Turkey must officially recognize the events as genocide. The effect is only that the position is hardened and that an open discussion becomes more difficult because the advocates are labeled as traitors. Hevesli 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To Serouj, history of Turks doesn't only contain last 90 something years. We have thousands of years of history and trust me, we know more than just humiliate and kill. Please focus on the article and try to improve it rather than discussing a thorny issue like Turkish- Armenian relations over the memory of Dink. See you, Deliogul 11:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have something to add to that. Serouj, excuse but from now on I won't be able to assume that you are acting on good faith. At least on Armenian-Turkish issues. 100.000 people marched in Turkey for god's sake and you're still claiming that 2007 connotes 1915. I am not willing to argue with you once more but just to let you know this attitude of yours will only result in new ASALAs in the future, as Laciner's attitude will create new Dinks. For once, try to be positive on the subject and focus on improving articles rather than trying to bash the Turkish in every opportunity. God does it disgust me when people use Dink's death for promoting their own ideas. Plus please don't start defending Tehlirian (or ASALA) again. He (They) was (were) also murderer(s). Two wrongs doesn't add up to be a right and why you kill someone doesn't change the fact that you are a murderer.Ombudsee 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never supported ASALA. Don't ever put words into my mouth again. I categorically condemn all forms of terrorism. However, you shouldn't get offended when people recognize and discuss the Armenian Genocide. It is not "insulting Turkishness" nor is it "bashing Turkey." Recognition (by Turkey) of the Armenian Genocide will help prevent violence among Armenians and Turks, and will help prevent any future state leaders and peoples thinking about ethnically cleansing their minorities. Recognition: it's about time now. Serouj 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Solomon Tehlirian was found "not guilty" for executing Talat Pasha, the equivalent of the "Turkish Hitler" during the Armenian Genocide who ordered to ‘Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern.’1 It is not I who exonerated him of his actions, but a German court. It's preposterous to compare the murder of Talat Pasha (a mass murderer) to that of Hrant Dink (a journalist) as the [article above does. Serouj 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee: "God does it disgust me when people use Dink's death for promoting their own ideas."

"...their own ideas?" My own idea? Hrant Dink was charged three times for "insulting Turkishness" under Article 301 (Turkish penal code). The first was for his affirming his Armenian identity; and the second and last charges were for his speaking on the Armenian Genocide (see the article). It's not my idea I'm presenting here. It's Hrant Dink's, and it's being talked about by the vast majority of Human Rights and journalism organizations. To not accept these truths is to be in denial. Serouj 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you supported ASALA (that's why I put that in brackets), however you did before defended Tehlirian and there you are doing it once again. You should know that his trial was more of a theater. And you stop putting words into my mouth. I didn't compare Talat pasha's execution with Dink's, however I do compare Tehlirian and Samast (Dink's Killer) and once again calling both of them murderers. You can't kill a defenseless person and still be acquitted, yet that's exactly what Tehlirian got from the oh-holy-German court. (and I can advise you some reading about german responsibility in 1915 if you want)

And now you claim that you're trying to prevent the violance between Armenians and Turks! First of all, what violance are you talking about? Just because a foolish brainwashed kid killed Dink you can't come up to a conclusion that there's violance between Turks and Armenians. and secondly, pardon me but you saying "pattern" of 2007 is just like 1915 would not prevent such "violance" if there ever was one. Such comment won't resolve anything. When hundred-thousand people were marching in Turkey for Dink, some Armenians were burning Turkish flag in Armenia. I think as an Armenian your duty should be changing those people, while as Turkish mine should be fighting against the ideas that killed Dink.

And don't ever try to teach me a lesson about Free-speech or 301. I was one of the hundred thousand marchers. I stood there for Dink's free speech. I walked against 301 (which is by the way not only for non-Turkish ancestry people - majority of the people brought to the court are Turks). I took the photos on this article to change at least one Armenian's idea about us, and yet you show me one article written by one I-don't-even-know-who guy and say that Turks still use the same pattern of 1915?! And if Abdullah Gül today anounced that 301 can be subjected to a change or a recall, I took my little part in it.

PS:I know this is not a place to argue, but you always seem to put provacative stuff on the talk pages that is not related to the article. I won't post here anymore. And I'm sorry for any inconvinience I've given to anybody.

RegardsOmbudsee 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, talat pasha was not a man, he was a subhuman animal that did not deserve to be shot dead, his limbs should have been torn apart by the relatives of the million plus he slaughtered.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I disliked Talat and his actions, I don't think I would ever go so far as to say that "his limbs should have been torn apart". Sure, he inflicted the same if not worse cruelties upon the Armenians, but I wouldn't want to wish the fate of our people on anyone, no matter how much blood they have on their hands. Besides, since his death, Talat has had to answer to a higher authority and perhaps is suffering even worse than any of his Armenian victims in a place known as Hell. -- Aivazovsky 03:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tehlirian just executed the sentence of the military court. He've read a Istanbul newspaper on the court and the verdict, and has executed the sentence. While I am against death penaliy, comparing Talaat with a dog would be insulting the dog, comparing Dink with Talaat, the one doing that should be institutionalised and be treated with 300 mg daily IV infusion of Haloperidol to limit the psychosis, without anticholinergic medication in cases it decrease the effect and 50 mg/day Methylphenidate to increase intellectual acquity wishing that it would help the suffering patient(Laciner). Fad (ix) 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can see where this is going and think we should stop. I just want to voice a few last thoughts, though. For the record, I believe that very few Armenians supported the ASALA. My family, for example, always criticized their actions as irresponsible because they put the lives of the remaining Turkish Armenians into jeopardy. Indeed, Turkey's Armenian community did suffer repercussions from the attacks even though they had no involvement with either the ASALA or the JCAG. Since the dissolution of both groups, both the Turkish government and media, especially in the 1990s used the "terrorist" label as a way of repressing Turkey's Armenian community. I think that at least, part of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation should involve such labels to fall from usage.

I'm also disturbed by the Journal of the Turkish Weekly, not only for publishing the infamous Dink-Talat article, but for also making what I see as an outright effort to create a wedge between Turks and Armenians. Take this latest article for example: [28]

Now I think we've gone on long enough. This discussion has gone way too off-topic. -- Aivazovsky 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee, I commend you for your participation in the demonstration. More should be done to protect free speech in Turkey, and more should be done to protect minorities.

Regarding Talat Pasha, it all depends on where you stand with the death penalty. Talat Pasha was condemned to death in absentia after World War I in Constantinople by the Ottoman military tribunal. The British did not execute him, though, as they didn't place much value on the sentence. Talat was moving freely in Europe. Someone always ends up pulling the trigger after a court condemns one to death. It happened with Saddam, and it happens to anyone on death row. In this case, it was an Armenian (Tehlirian) who stepped up to the plate. The act was no different than the Mossad locating Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960. In the case of Talat, though, his verdict was already handed down by the Ottoman military tribunal: guilty, subject to the death penalty. Anyways, we're getting way off topic, and I suggest we stop it here. Serouj 05:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AgreedOmbudsee 09:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the original intro - these things are just meant to be overviews, and shouldn't go into too much detail (we have the body of the article for that). Khoikhoi 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Check the John F. Kennedy article. I think the assassination part should be cut down a bit. Serouj 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another user (Docktor Gonzo) has just reverted the intro which was created after a long set of edits and compromises. Guys, please be a bit civil and don't delete legitimate work outright without discussion. Serouj 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly JFK article doesn't look that good either, but it's far better than this one. Second paragraph, on behalf of the first sentence, has nothing that should be included in the intro. Half of the first paragraph should also be rewritten. It's not written in encylopedic style, but rather like a promotion campaign for Armenian Genocide. passages like — which he referred to as "genocide" — and — one of the most controversial issues in Turkey today — should be taken away immideatly for the same reason. It's not that he didn't say these, he did, but then one can also expand them like -which he referred to as genocide but he said that Turkish people of today are so nice that they can't believe their ancestors did it- (which were his real thoughts by the way) and so.

This is an intro of Dink's biography, not the place for promoting supportive ideas for genocide. And I believe what is uncivil is to revert back something that is just reverted by an editor before coming to a conclusion on the talk page. I'll be working over the article now.Ombudsee 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Every sentence has been cited to a reliable source. Hrant Dink's prosecution for "insulting Turkishness" is significant enough to mention in the intro, including the reasons for such: 1) for speaking publicly on his Armenian identity, and 2) for speaking publicly about the Armenian Genocide. It was due to the promotion by the government and media that he "insulted Turkishness" which led to his being killed by a fanatic Turkish nationalist. All of these points deserve mention in the intro. Serouj 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Serouj, As I am editing now, I see that everything in the intro is mentioned at least twice. You talk like his death is more important then what he did. let me finish working on it, then we can discuss. OK?Ombudsee 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good now. Doesn't skip the parts that you considered that were important, however distributing the detailed information to their own headers. What do you think?Ombudsee 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's good, but I would like to see the following key points in the intro:

1. That he was prosecuted under 301 for his publicly speaking on his Armenian identity and the Armenian Genocide, because any overview by a Human Rights org or journalism org mentions it. Perhaps re-instating: For his statements on Armenian identity and the Armenian Genocide — one of the most controversial issues in Turkey today — Dink was prosecuted three times under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code for the "crime" of “insulting Turkishness.”^[2][3][4]
2. That he had received numerous death threats, was living in fear of his personal safety, and had not had his safety concerns addressed by the government (these also feature prominently in nearly all overviews of his life): He also received numerous death threats from Turkish nationalists who viewed his iconoclastic journalism (particularly in regard to the Armenian Genocide) as an act of treachery.^[5] In his last column on January 10, he revealed that he lived in fear for his personal safety because of the threats against him, and described the indifference shown by Turkish authorities after he complained about those threats.^[6][7]

thanks. Serouj 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to the intro:

For these statements he was prosecuted repeatedly, while he also received numerous death threats.

Is that enough? Intro must be summary of the remainder of article. Hevesli 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that was not direct and specific enough. I've added the two said sentences. It's good now, and the intro's short enough. Serouj 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhmmm almost. There are still couple of things though. I thin these two sentences can be merged; "He was best known for his open and critical approach, in public statements and writings, to the issues of Armenian identity and the official Turkish version of the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire which he referred to as genocide.[2][3] For his statements on Armenian identity and the Armenian Genocide — one of the most controversial issues in Turkey today — Dink was prosecuted three times under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code for the "crime" of “insulting Turkishness.”[4][2][5] " since it sounds very repetetive now. And I think that we should remove the last sentence of the first paragraph, since it makes it look like as if the Turkish government intentionally did not protect him. As stated in further paragraphs, he never offically asked for protection saying that he doesn't want to live a life like that. Plus his death wouldn't benefit the government from any aspect, and it didn'tOmbudsee 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Ideas?

There is still some information loss which I will address soon. According to Dink, he failed a complaint with the Prosecutor's Office about the death threats but they never got back to him (see his last column and quote in article). It's worth a mention in the intro. Serouj 09:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Dink himself even just mentioned about, putting it into brackets as a post script in one of his articles. It doesn't deserve a place in the intro as if it's a milestone of his lifetime. Him recieving death threats are decribed in the intro with more than enough details such as by whom and why plus that threat e-mail it is mentioned later in the article. It has a further reading value, not intro. Regards, Ombudsee 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dink himself even just mentioned about" What else was he supposed to do in his column other than "mention" it? The fact that he approached the Prosecutor's office with the threats and was not given a response only a week before his murder is significant. Serouj 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well see, I don't say that we remove it from the article, it's just not intro worth. About the "mention" thing, what I said was Dink put it in brackets in one of his articles. It's not like he was consistently writing about the death treats. Even if he did, that wouldn't need a detailed description in the intro. Well anyways, I think we worked together very well and the intro looks stable and well-summarized now. I also thank you for being constructive rather than stubborn. Regards Ombudsee 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox for Armenian and Turkish users

I created this userbox for both Armenian and Turkish users in light of Hrant Dink's assassination:

 All the best, Aivazovsky 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose.. However the problem is not the law but the application. Many countries in the world have such laws you know [29]. Check this funny one too [30] :) But note that the wording of that decree corresponds word for word to the second section of 301. What the prosecutor said is also interesting. Turkey is not the only one, therefore I cannot simply say that I oppose nor condone. In Turkey some people have pushed the courts to open cases by repeatedly filing complaints and the legal system was not able to establish a case law in an efficient manner. However it is a legitimate stand though, and laudible. Baristarim 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is also Jimbo's opinion that, "using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea."[31] Hevesli 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination

I nominated the panorama on this page. (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hrant Dink's Funeral) Feel free to comment on it. And be frank, it's not that you're going to break my heart if you oppose :) Ombudsee 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder where all of these people were when he was alive and being prosecuting for "insulting Turkishness" after he spoke about his Armenian identity (and how he doesn't consider himself a Turk, but an Armenian living in Turkey) and the Genocide. It was this very same campaign of hate speech against him, initiated by the government and propagated by many nationalist media outlets, that led to his death. Why didn't these crowds speak out then? Serouj 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They were always there and many did speak against it. It's just that you always hear howling of the nationalist more, and to admit they are always the better organized in such cases. Plus (I believe) half of the crowd there didn't know about Dink before he was assassinated. I'll blame the(our) populist media for that. He could have been alive now, only if people knew what he was facing. Instead of such cases newspapers publish pages-long essays about which celebrity screwed who, claiming that is what people want. It's sad that there's always that need for some blood shed before your voice is heard. Sad, but true. RegardsOmbudsee 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's sad that there's always that need for some blood shed before your voice is heard. Sad, but true." Perhaps that's the reality in Turkey. In most of the world, you don't need to die in order to live in dignity, to hold on to your ethnic identity, or to talk about your community's history. Serouj 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever happened to hear about a guy called Martin Luther King?Ombudsee 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in the 60s (good point, though, that's appreciated). Serouj 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dink is death and now everybody talks about Turkey and how a wild country it is... Actually, we rebelled against imperialist powers of the world and became one the clearest examples of the freedom struggle. Mustafa Kemal once said "This nation must be demolished if it can't live freely". The thing I want to explain is the basis of the Turkish country. We can say that it is corrupted and harmed over the years but still more powerful than many nations out there. Deliogul 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us not use this page as a soapbox please. Hevesli 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My support! is there :-) Nareklm 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured! Thanks for all who supported! Ombudsee 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scarcely motivated mass reverts

Many of my edits were reverted, most twice, today with edit summaries nothing is on there about the TR police scandal so please leave the sourced info[32] and discuss changes before contrsiversial edits[33]. These were reverting the following edits made by me:

1. Improving a wikilink from Zaman (newspaper) to Today's Zaman (newspaper).[34]
2. Adding further news citation to a source which is showing the posing picture and some sourced information about the video footage of Samast posing with police officers, also correcting a bad spelling error.[35]
3. Removed duplicate information.[36]
4. Turned a raw citation url to {{cite web}} form.[37]
5. Removed wrong colon symbol in middle of sentence and added some wikilinks.[38]
6. Added sourced information from reliable source that Turkish General staff canceled accreditation of TV station showing the video footage.[39]
7. Made a small adjustment to a cite news title because it had changed.[40]
8. Added two more citations of published reliable sources on the police scandal.[41]

I don't understand. Why is my edits called "controversial"? Why must I discuss before making them? Can editors who reverted explain? Hevesli 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, whatever you do please obey the Wiki rules and please do not delete "On 02/02/2007, a new video of Ogün Samast, the alleged shooter, has been released where he's taking pictures (holding a Turkish flag) with some Turkish Army officials and he is treated as a hero. [3]" Because it is sourced well. Thanks. Ozgur Gerilla 02:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand that reason for reverts was my edit #3. But why then did you not just revert my edit #3. Why also revert #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 (all reverted twice) and #8 (once)? Why?

Reason I did not understand the edit summaries of reverting editors was because of the mass revert. I thought the reverts was made by nationalist Turks against my edits #2, #6, #7 and #8.

My edit #3's edit summary said: "Undid revision 105111119 by Ozgurgerilla(talk) because treated more extensively elsewhere in the article". What Wiki rule is not obeyed if text is removed that is treated more extensively elsewhere in the article? Here is comparison:

Text which was removed in my edit #3 On 02/02/2007, a new video of Ogün Samast — the shooter, has been released where he's taking pictures (holding a Turkish flag) with some Turkish Army officials and he is treated as a hero. [42]

Text which was remaining elsewhere (not yet with more citations which was added in my edit #8) On February 1, 2007, the private Turkish television channel TGRT broadcast video footage of the man accused of shooting Hrant Dink posing proudly behind a Turkish flag, flanked by police officers of both military and security police, allegedly filmed in the police bureau of Samsun where he was taken after his arrest. In the background was a poster bearing the words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: "The nation's land is sacred. It cannot be left to fate." The video caused shock and consternation as commentators warned it was another sign of the growing power of Turkish ultra-nationalism, as the nation gears up for parliamentary and presidential elections later this year. Ismet Berkan, editor of the liberal newspaper Radikal, said that the release of the video was like killing Mr Dink a second time. It proved, he claimed, "that the murderer and his associates are not alone, that their supporters ... have penetrated all segments of the state." A police spokesperson said an investigation into the video footage and its leaking was under way.[82][83] Rumours of the existence of such footage had circulated for days, but had been denied by the police and the military. In an apparent act of retaliation to the broadcasting of the footage, the Turkish General Staff canceled the accreditation of TGRT, required for broadcasting.[84][85]. The general director of TGRT, Murat Akgiray, and the director responsible for the broadcasting, Bahattin Apak, have resigned.[86] 82. "Turkish police posed for picture with killer of Armenian journalist", Independent Online Edition, 2007-02-03. Retrieved on February 3, 2007. (in English) 83. "Turkey hit by scandalous aftershocks from Dink murder", Today's Zaman, 2007-02-03. 84. "Genelkurmay'dan TGRT'ye veto", Habertürk, 2007-02-02. (in Turkish) 85. "Genelkurmay, TGRT'ye ambargo koydu", Medyatava, 2007-02-03. (in Turkish) 86. "TGRT istifa haberine yanit verdi", Habertürk, 2007-02-02. (in Turkish)

I will now reapply my edits except #4. Do not revert again please. I do not want to continue edit war so I will leave the text as is in left column, but it has risk of attracting more edits and creating more duplication. Hevesli 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, go on, your version looks better. Ozgur Gerilla 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So I suppose that, that refers to edit #3, which I have reapplied. This "little thing" has cost me more than two hour. Hevesli 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to #3. I thought you've just deleted my edit (especially after I seen your user page not been edited) but you must of added a paragraph related to what I wrote. Don't worry about bringing but what you wrote, just revert it. Ozgur Gerilla 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

It seems that the article has stabilized. Therefore I have submitted it to the WP:WPBIO project peer review. Let's see what they say and then we can perhaps take it to GA and FA? --Free smyrnan 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed WP:WPBIO assessment as B without any comments... Trying GA next. I'd like to have some good feedback hopefully, pointing out what is needed to make the article better. --Free smyrnan 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)