Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Protection

This article has now been protected for over two months. Is there any reason why it should not be unprotected? Kelly Martin 15:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


Some questions

Firstly, i'm no expert on the whole Armenian problem, but in the interests of improving this article i wanted to ask some questions.

  • If genocide did happen and academics have proved it irrefutable (as this article suggests), why has the UN still not recognised an Armenian genocide?
I don't see how this article suggest the genocide to be irrefutable, it only present positions. Furthermore, the UN did recognize it in 1985, a year after the Permanent People Tribunal. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
This was covered in various occasions here. And most recently, there: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Photos.2C_photo_names.2C_photo_captions_and_use_of_.22deportation.22. You can have the full report that was voted, from the booklet: “UNITED NATIONS REPORT ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: UN 38th Session, 1985.” You can follow the link here for a resume: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Teaching_Armenian_Genocide/Resources_6__Armenian_Genocide/resources_6__armenian_genocide.html
Or either, you could have excerpts of the voted report, here: http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/DocsMaps/UN%20Report%20on%20Genocide%20(excerpts).pdf
Dear Felix,
This VOTED report of yours is nothing but personel idea of a sub comite member. On the very same document it is stated that it is NOT AN UN PUBLICATION. For all, please read the document footnotes.--Isarioglu 00:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
There is also a book published under the title: “Le Génocide des Arméniens devant l'ONU” in French, covering the entire issue, from the 70s, famous paragraph 30, which Turkey forced to delete, to the final report and it's vote. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For a country/regime/people to be found guilty of genocide shouldnt there be some sort of trial in a court of law e.g. Milosevic? Were the Turks not cleared in the Malta Tribunals?
There never was a Malta Tribunal, there were Malta prisoners, and this was covered in the talk page extensively in the past. On the other hand, there was the Military tribunal which convicted the leaders of the Ittihadist party. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do many respectable sources still refer to it as Armenian massacres e.g. BBC, Reuters, Encylopedia Brittanica?
Encyclopedia Brittanica entry regarding the topic has been widely changed over the years, and is the only encyclopedia of its type, that treat the subject like this. Le Robert, Universalis, Encarta and various other encyclopedias refer it as genocide. As for newspapers, various other newspapers refer it as genocide, and other times it depend on the writer. The New York Times, and the Boston Globe have officially recognized it. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone watch the movie "WACKING THE DOG" ? --Isarioglu 00:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
If you're trying to be silly, it's really not the place. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I notice the article states that the Swiss government recognises an Armenian genocide, but this news articlesays the House of Representatives does, but the government does not.
Not exactly. The article doesn't say the government, but rather the country. While Canada recognize the genocide, the ministers refused to take position, the recognition of the country depend on the vote of the deputies, those that were elected democratically to represent the citizens. The national council of Switzerland, The Swiss House of Representatives is what count as to say recognized by a country. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Turkish Workers Party Chairman Dogu Perincek has violeted the Swiss law on "Denial of Armenian Genocide" some week ago , willingly and in public. Swiss police arrested him. After questioning, they let him free, against his protests. He DEMANDED a court in Bern and in the coming month, we will see a good law match.--Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how this is relevant. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If many countries still do not recognise a genocide aswell as the UN, is it fair for this article to use the subsection "Turkish government denial"? Does this not unfairly create the impression that there is no doubt surrounding the genocide claims and that Turkey is lying? Isn't this quite a strong POV?
As I said, the UN recognized it in 1985, as for countries, as I told you in another entry, many countries still do not recognize the Holocaust, will you propose to modify the Holocaust entry for this? Oh and, not recognition does not mean denial. Only Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the genocide. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
See above. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that my only interest in this article is to create a fair and balanced topic, the kind that is seen in many other respectable sources on the Internet. --

Thanks Lord! A sane person.
Your assumptions regarding the [lack of] sanity of certain persons are unwelcome here in Wikipedia. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry and thanks for reminding me. Would you also remind Mr.Troth for "Can you truly be so ignorant and stupid? --THOTH 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC) please ?

Suggestion about "Turkish government denial"

I propose to move it in the talk page for further discussion as to how to make it more NPOV. So let make that a poll. Agree or oppose? Fadix 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion is that it be renamed "Turkish government position". I really cannot imagine any printed encylopedia using the term "Turkish government denial", it wreaks of POV (for the short term i agree it be moved to discussion). --E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There was a proposition, to have a Turkish government position in the article, presenting the different official versions of the article. Coolcat could not accept. There is something called "Turkish government denial," it doesn't require a statment to be true to be accepted, in fact, Wikipedias NPOV policy treat subjects not to reveal truths, but positions. How you should see this thing, is: "Is there a phenomenen called "Turkish government denial"? There is one. You then present those that support the position, and reject it, and what both positions are. The reason why I have proposed to redraw that section was not because of its title, but rather the content that is not really NPOV. If you move it here, I will have no problem, but I want still to know what others believe, because I am really not interested to face another revert war. Fadix 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you really imagine (or have you actually seen) a section entitled "Turkish government denial" in any credible Encyclopedia or other source explaining these events? Your effectively saying a genocide did happen, and Turkey is denying it. For there to be a "Turkish government denial", then there must be an "Armenian genocide" to be denied, since the latter is a matter of dispute not just between Turkey and Armenia, but between several other countries and Armenian also (e.g. UK as below) then for the article to hold such a position is POV.
I'm all for discussing it here, reverts get you nowhere. When you say "move it here", do you actually mean a cut and paste from the article for the time being, or just to create a discussion on it? --E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Turkish government denial, is an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles are not based on wherever or not something did happen, but rather if such a position exist. There is a position called the Turkish government position, as denial. If we were to apply your logic here, we should probably take off, or delete every articles other than mathematical concepts, because, there will be a position against the maintained position that the article cover. Much like the Armenian genocide entry. The Armenian genocide entry exist, because a position called “Armenian genocide” exist, and this regardless of wherever or not there was an Armenian genocide.
The section on the other hand, should specify what the position is. Something such: “What is often called the Turkish government denial, is the position maintained by scholars that support the theses of genocide, on the other hand, the Turkish government refuse to accept its position as denial etc...” Fadix 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I say again Fadix, have you ever seen in any credible encylopedia, a section entitled "Turkish government denial"? It is a completely partisan statement aimed at reaffirming one point of view at the expense of another. What i suggest is a section entitled "Turkish government position" - within this explanation there can be a sentence such as "Those who accept the genocide thesis view this position as denial".
Your proposition is problematic thanks to Coolcat. The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless. As for encyclopedia, we can not search entries name in other encyclopedias the way you do. You should rather ask yourself if the name is encyclopedic, I really don't see how it is not. Is there a position called : "Turkish government denial"? There is one, I don't see how presenting a title for a position, suggest the position in question to be true, since the article itself present it, as a position maintained by some. All articles are presented this way in Wikipedia. If we apply your logic, we should not present an entry regarding Santa, because only presenting that title would suggest that Santa exist. Fadix 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
My proposition is not problematic at all, since i cannot spot any version of the Turkish government position in the article. Fadix, if your going to be stubborn about removing such a blindingly obvious POV statement as "Turkish government denial", something no respectable source of information would print or has printed, then what hope do i have of getting anything changed in this article? --E.A 12:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Fadix, please show me where in this article the Turkish governments position is sufficiently conveyed to make my idea problematic and useless. --E.A 18:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The Turkish government position was sufficiently conveyed, according to the NPOV policy here in Wikipedia, which stat that idealy as much spaces should be left to a position as it is supported by the accademia. Fadix 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The Turkish governments position was not conveyed at all. Firstly, this article contains a declaration by 69 American academia supporting Turkeys view, secondly whether or not academia support it, Turkeys position exists and has reprucussions which must be explained here. --E.A 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
So according to you, the lead section is lacking of that? Mind you again, that Coolcat was the one that refused to have a Turkish government version, because according to him, it would lead people to believe that the Turkish government version is wrong. The article was worked around as to merge the Turkish government version in it, rather than having its own section, largely because of Coolcat. Don't blame me for something I am not responsable of. Fadix 22:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't talk in my name. I suggested there were many inaccuracies. --Cool Cat Talk 09:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

UN recognition

I wanted to make a separate section on this because i feel it is important. I think we have to establish whether the adoption of that report is tantamount to recognition from the UN. I would have thought recognition would have come in the form of a Resolution, not an obscure sentence in a general report on genocide. Furthermore, i have read on other websites that "The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence" (ATAA), perhaps someone can clarify this.

Also on the Turkish embassy website it states "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide." Can someone explain this statement?

--E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When it is a resolution, the “other side” will claim that it is not researched and is political, when it is a report, in this cases the result of 8 years of studies, it is claimed it isn't a resolution. The thing is that the report was submitted to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and voted. Call this what you want, it was voted and passed. The Sub-committee never refused for lack of evidences, there are transcriptions of the panel discussion, and not only for the Armenian cases, and I don't recall reading anything such. What happened is that there were problems to the UN, because the nature of the resolution, it was taken and presented to the Sub-committee, and later placed to a vote. Farhan Haq statement could mean everything, it could be interpreted as, the report being transferred from the UN proper, to the sub-committee as a refusal for the UN, but this interpretation still is questionable, because the reason why it was transferred had more to do with the nature of the report than the reference to the Armenians. Besides, I don't remember there is a Holocaust resolution testifying the “accuracy” of the event. While the 1948 convention did include provision for it, the report submitted few months before that convention regarding the Armenian massacre made of the cases inclusive of the convention. I do think that the 70s famous paragraph 30, referencing to the Armenian cases was enough clear about this, before the Turkish side, with a Pakistani lawyer tried to redraw it. Fadix 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian massacres is that people were tried and found guilty of the Holocaust, whereas the Armenian massacres rely on historical interpretation to find a country guilty of genocide. I would have thought for a country to be accused of genocide there must be some legal findings, this sentiment is echoed by a recent House of Lords discussion for example when Lord Triesman stated:
"neither this Government nor previous British governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN convention on genocide...
...The judgment required under the United Nations convention is that it can be demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the difference is made." (http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Lords_-_14July05/lords_-_14july05.html)
How would the British government be able to say lawyers do not find the evidence points to genocide according to UN conventions, when you say the UN recognises genocide?
Also, with regards to Switzerland, i think a distinction should be made as was done with Canada, that while the House of Representatives recognises the genocide, the governments holds a different position: "swissinfo: Why won't the Senate recognise the Armenian deaths as genocide like other western countries?
P.B.: I think that the position of our government is the better one. I don't feel comfortable being the judge of the whole world and of something that happened a long time ago."
(http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6003167&cKey=1123784833000)--E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
We've been there. The Turkish military tribunal found guilty, the leaders of the Ittihadist party, of having planned the destruction of the Armenians. The term, crimes against humanity and civilization, was coined during World War I to refer to the Armenian cases. The first time, the German equivalent for the term genocide, was ever used massively was before even Raphael Lemkin has coined the term, and this to refer to the Armenian cases. In 1948, months before the genocide convention, a report prepared by the UN, and this after Lemkin presentation of the cases for the last years before it was adopted, presented the Armenian cases, which was used as one of the foundations of the convention on genocide. Raphael Lemkin, the person whom coined the term genocide, became a lawyer, and worked in finding a legal term, which would be applicable to condemn authors of such acts, because of what happened to the Armenians. I have presented here Lemkins own wittings explaining this, which was as well published in the Genocide encyclopedia written by Israel Charny.
The UN, when reviewing the cases of genocides in the 70s, because they thought that an upgrade was in order, to include all the reported cases of genocide, included the Armenian cases, as if, it was never debated, before the Turkish side pressurized and forced it to be redrawn. The Permanent Peoples Tribunal, a year before the UN vote, clearly mentions that the Armenian cases has all of the elements of the UN convention for genocide, without ignoring here, that Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term, included the cases with the Holocaust, not only as cases of genocides, but elements and part of the definition of genocide. Which basically means that it is not the Armenian cases that should respect elements to be called genocide, but rather, any other cases having the components of the Armenian genocide, to be a genocide.
Not only, was there a tribunal judging the authors of the Armenian massacres, but those condemned were the leaders, and their link in the destruction of the Armenians was made, more clearly than the Nuremberg.
Coming to the distinction, countries recognition is independents from a government. I followed the entire thing here in Canada, I have witnessed a deputy reading a pamphlet prepared by the Turkish embassy, with the moon and star on the cover. I have witnessed how Turkey has pressurized Canada and has threatened. I have viewed something that I have never seen, even during the vote on Gay marriage. The deputies of the governing party voting against the ministers, and this, IN MASS, I have witnessed the minister of justice that was pressurized by the Turkish government to vote against, whom to not be forced to vote against the governments line, was not present at the house. I have witnessed, the prime ministers absence during the vote. Do you even have an idea, what the Turkish government did to threaten Canada? Do you have an idea on what they did until the last second? I wonder how one can dare claiming that the governments position was not the same. The governments position, was to not take position because of the repercussions, while they have made a little statement to the Turkish embassy, that was later manipulated as to make of it, as if the Canadian government contrary to the house deny the genocide.
Did you watch, Democracy Now, few days ago, about the allegations that a Turkish embassy member declaring that the cost of Hastert redrawel of the genocide resolution of 2000 in the US, would be of 500,000$, when internal polls indicated that the resolution, if put to vote would have passed? Why do you think, that a majority of the US states, recognize the genocide, while resolutions are drawn even before they are voted in the Federal? How can one equate, a non-vote as denial, the way you do? When governments recognize, revisionists claim, history must be decided by historians, when historians are referred, it is claimed that the country in which they live, does not officially recognize the genocide. So, here let stick, the the deputies voted democratically by the citizens of a country.
Coming to Switzerland, how dare you mention this, after the Turkish government has treatned to sue Switzerland, and threatened it, in a way, so childishtic, that I couldn't find any words from all the languages I know to describe such a behavior. And when refuse to pass a resolution to vote, revisionists are the first to come and claim, the country do not recognize the genocide. Let me tell you E.A., since you quote Lord Triesman. Let refer to the link here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50714-02.htm
Before I continue, E.A., do you know which lawyers are referred here? Fadix 19:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Your completely missing my point Fadix, i'm not trying to say Switzerland does not recognise a genocide. I'm trying to point out that like Canada, the Swiss government does not take the position of its House of Representatives as shown in those Swiss news articles. Since the entry on Canada highlights this in the article, then why does it not say the same for Switzerland, this is all i am trying to point out. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement regarding Canada was added there, before there was attempts to remove Canada from the list. Governments recognition is subjective, and I advance that this statement about Canada should be taken back, and I believe the reason is obvious. Governments change, a government can decide to take position, another not, what counts is what has been placed to votes, such as resolutions and laws, those remains. It is not governments that decide on the adoptions of resolutions or laws, but to the deputies who vote. This is what it has always been, no one remind about governments positions during the voting of resolutions and laws, but rather if it has passed or not. Both the Canadian senate, and the House have recognized the event as genocide. The house is formed of the deputies voted democratically to represent the citizens, what a government during a mandate think, can be reverted by another governments words. Besides, did you listen to the debates before it was voted? Ignoring the person that has read a pamphlet of the Turkish embassy, there was no one questioning the events. The few others that spoke opposing it, was the concerns of Turkish answer and the canceling of Canadian contracts. The government has affirmed to the Turkish embassy, that the House has spoken, and that the government should not be considered as responsible. The prime minister is the leader of our government and he decided to not vote, because he could just not do what the Turkish government has instructed him to do, and this, neither the minister of justice. For those reasons, any more statements clarifying the Canadian governments position is bogus, because it suggest Canadian governments as if they were eternal and not voted each 4-5 years. Fadix 23:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile

Stating that the "Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile" is a legitimate source of recognition undermines this articles credibility. Firstly, there is no Kurdistan from which this "parliament" is exiled, secondly, the 'recognition' was delivered by the head of the PKK (a terrorist organisation recognised by EU and US), Abdullah Ocalan. By using this your supporting the Kurdish POV and making this article naturally anti-Turkish by supporting PKK activities to split Turkey. --E.A 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted the official name of that body, which was translated by I don't know whom. That body exist, and it recognize it. What do you suggest? Fadix 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Unless you can find a legitimate body, i suggest it be completely removed. Its a mickey mouse title and it doesn't help this article one bit. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a registered organization founded in Hague, it now has a registered address in Belgium. The organization claim to represent not only the Kurds of Turkey, but also those of Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. I don't see why it should be removed. If you think the words are misleading, you can place a parantheses to clarify that it is not a parlement in the proper sense of the term. Fadix 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

That section is all upside down, informations not important enough are included, others more important, not. By important I mean, the recognitions by states, and organizations etc. By not important, I mean, statments given by the Turkish government or such. Beside, a timeline is too long, and a recent one not really related with the genocide itself, I propose to creat another page for it. Any suggestions? Fadix 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing Istanbul for Constantinople

There was a reason why first when I added that section, I named Constantinople, this was changed by Coolcat. It is a question of name conventions. In historical works, places are called according to what they were called during the period treated. In 1919, English language publications mostly used Constantinople, and in accordance to name convention, this is the term that should be used. The same is done also for the Istanbul entry, I don't see the word Constantinople deleted there. Also the French entry of the Armenian genocide, for the trial, use also Constantinople and not Istanbul. Fadix 18:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Due to no response for my suggestion on "Turkish government position", i've gone ahead and implemented it (especially since i notice French Wikipedia using the same). I've reworded some parts, reshuffled paragraph on recognition and added other small edits. --E.A 21:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, what no response? There is a warning in the talk page, saying that since the article is controversial, there should be discussions here before any important changes, which you did not respect. You refuse to accept that "Turkish government denial" is encyclopedic, but the Genocide Encyclopdia by Israel Charny, has just such a section regarding what is termed there as the denial by the Turkish state. Universalis, the French encyclopedia, treat the subject by terming it as such. You were free to add a section regarding the Turkish government position, but this is not what you did, you entirly modified an already existing section without discussing it. For now, I have to think of what to do of it. Fadix 21:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You told me my suggestion to have a Turkish government position was pointless because "The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless.". I asked you twice to show me an example of the Turkish government position within this article and you didn't respond. After looking at the French entry on this article i noticed "La position turque" and decided the same can be applied here. --E.A 22:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Pay attention to the lead text, and compare it with the French enty. The text there was to have its own section, and only a presentation that the Turkish government reject such "charges" was to be presented. This was merged, mostly because of Coolcat implications. The French entry, on the other hand, has no such clarification on the lead section regarding the Turkish government position, and for this reason, it has a need to have a Turkish government position, which basically say what the English version say in its lead section. More than that, for it to need more informations, it would be misleading and push the article into POV, because it misrepresent, and give a government version more places than, let say the position of the Accemia, which in what concerns this cases should have a section, and it has not, because the last time I checked, they are those that write history and not governments. You are politicizing the issue, while history is supposed to be as much apolitical as possible. Another differences with the French version, is that the French versions, Turkish government section, does not do what you do, after covering what the English lead sections Turkish position, it present the Turkish governments answer to the "charges" and more current events, most of that section is about that, as to not misrepresent positions to mislead readers into believing that both positions are supported equaly, when they are obviously not. Had the English version been a copy of the French or German version, it would be called pro-Armenian POV, even thought, the French version is moderated by an Administrator. But let ignore all of this, had you wanted and proposed to have a Turkish version section, which would include the government and the Turkish public opinion, there was nothing I could have done about it, but only be cautious as to respect the ratio. But what you did, is to propose changing an already existing section that had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have, and finally you decided to push that and entry modify that section. This is deleting of information, and is simply wrong. But since the mistake has been done, and I believe that we can work out this way, let it work this way then. But in future, I hope that before changing important sections of the article, you discuss it in the talk page, because I will revert it, because I will have to do that. Fadix 22:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have not attempted to claim that anything Turkey says has the same amount of consensus as opponents of her view. Everything wrote was in relation to what the official Turkish government position is, hence: "Turkey does not accept", "Turkey holds the position that", "Turkey states that", "Turkey believes", "Turkey also critcises" etc etc. I could have gone into a lot more depth on this, but as it is, i have provided 1 paragraph in the whole article on the Turkish government POV. The only information which i removed, which i did plan to discuss here but forgot in all this writing, was the allegations that Turkey funds a world wide attempt to deny a genocide. This is accusing the government of bribery and until definitive proof of these allegations is provided then i felt it too POV to be included.
I am particularly insulted by your comment that i am changing things because it "had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have". Your suggesting i'm trying to manipulate a very serious article to misinform readers according to my own views. The only thing i am trying to attempt is to give this article some fairness and credbility. --E.A 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have not accused you of such. Don't take me wrong, as I said, we will be working with your changes. What was my real problem is the changes of a section. While the subject of that section was about one thing, you have made of it a section regarding the Turkish government position. That's what I really have against. As for the Turkish governments "corruption," E.A., while corruption is a strong word, the information of Turkish government financing is even not denied by the Turkish state. Financing of universities is public domain information, and you can recieve the informations without much difficulties. The ITS and ARIT grants do exist, in a way, that such grants from the Israeli state to American universities the way they exist with Turkey, don't even exist. All the noises around universities like Princeton, were about real financings not only claims. The only reason it was rejected in UCLA, was because of the Armenian students and community there that was pretty strong, had it not been of this, the UCLA among the professors of Middle East studies, would have those DIRECTLY financed through the ITS and ARIT grants. Anyway, the change is made right? Lets stick to it, and work on this new version. OK? Fadix 23:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Websites refered on the bottom of the article.

There are websites with duplicate informations, as well as in the media, articles taken from the websites. There are hundreds of websites, and many articles in those websites. I believe there should be a process of selection of each websites. Supposes that we find a website that contains everything there is in two other websites, I don't see the need to include those other websites. Also, if those websites contains the texts in question referenced in the media section, why shousing those texts and not others in the same websites? Any proposition Fadix 16:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

Those changes were part of the changes that I said should have been done, before starting to footnote. Also, the timeline should be restricted to only very important dates linked with genocide recognition and such. So I propose to have two timeline, one in the article, and another with more dates. Fadix 21:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has gotten substantially worse in the last couple of days. Somebody went through and "neutralized" everything with bad writing and terrible grammar -- subject-verb agreement has been particularly destroyed by substituting phrases.

can you give examples please?



Turkish government position - lack of sympathetic tone?

I have been reading up on Wikipedia NPOV policy, and it states that:

"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."

I feel the article at present does not show a sympathetic tone to the Turkish governments view. The initial edits i created gave one small paragraph to the Turkish gov POV. The edits that were added to this however dissmissed the Turkish gov POV as it went along and is so doing abandoned a smypathetic tone. I think the Turkish gov POV should only be refuted in one or two lines such "the statistics the government presents are disputed in certain academic circles", it should not be dismissed with a section larger than the Turkish gov POV itself, which as it stands, is one paragraph in an entire article. Let me know what you think. --A.Garnet 16:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have added Halacoglu, who is leading the Turkish history foundation, and the leading figure the Turkish government has now. I don't see how presenting his position is not sympatic to the Turkish governments position. That's what most of the edit to your section was about. Fadix 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Tone is too vague a construct for our immediate purposes, perhaps. Our aim is provide an account which cites authoritative, representatively selected sources. More concretely and specifically, what changes or additions do you suggest we adopt, A.Garnet? El_C 00:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, rather than dismiss the governments figures, perhaps we should highlight that its view does have some backing from academics such as Justin Mcarthy who highglighted that hundreds of thousands of Muslism also perished. If he is the only academic who supports this, then we can say that "These views are outnumbered by those who support the genocide theses such as the Association of genocide shcolars" etc. I will continue this tommorow, thanks for your help. --A.Garnet 01:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
As I told to Coolcat, I will be adding McCarthy(he is included in both of my created articles), I have no problem with adding relevant things, but I oppose unjustified deletion. Another note, do also consider that this entry is not about Muslim losses, and therefor, it can not be really developped much here, I agree adding McCarthy there though(I already planned to do that). Fadix 04:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we add words of sympathy to the millions of Germans who lost their lives in WWII to the Holocaust section? Is this somehow relevent information? Where are the direct observations that tie any Turkish deaths to the Armenian Genocide (outside of death by disease because of the hundreds of thousands of bodies of slaughtered Armenians that were left lying about throughout the countryside). Now I do wish to add that I believe a discussion of the conditions in the Ottoman Empire - with contraction and subsequant refugee influx into Anatolia and the effect of the falling fortunes of the Ottoman Empire in the mindset of the ruling Turkish elits and masses - and specifically upon the development of the political views of the radical element of the CUP who came to power beginning in 1910/11 is relevant. It is relevant in the same way as a discussion of the political and economic circumstances of the Weimar Republic and the resultant rise of Hitler and the Nazis and the shaping of their political outlook (and that of the German massess) is relevant to a discusion of why would Germans commit genocide against the jews in WWII. in this regard the poor circumstances - political, economic and in regard to self-esteem - as well as the mechanisms of scapegoatism - and why the antagonism toward (Orthodox Christian) Armenians - etc - this information requires presentation for readers to understand how an environment came to be created where such a decision could be made and such actions could be taken to commit mass murder of an entire people - as the environment of despair and collapse and the need to blame affected the German mentality towards the Jews a very similar set of circumstances led to the Turkish animosities toward (and willingness to villanize) Armenians (who as a group were no real threat, had nothing to do with any significant Turkish/Muslim deaths prior to or during the Genocide and where such extreme violent actions taken against them could not be ever rationally justified). So yes in this regard deaths of and the presence of refugee Turks/Turkics in Anatolia is properly seen as one factor in creating an environment that allowed development of a mindset to justify extreme violent and inhumane action against the otherwise inocuous Armenians of the Empire. This is one of several major factors. --THOTH 17:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand this page is not about Muslim losses but it can be said "McCarthy also highlights that a large numbers of Muslims were also killed" etc, doesn't need to be expanded. --A.Garnet 20:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inserting this statement is akin to inserting a statement in the Holocaust section by David Irving that references German deaths in WWII. First these deaths had little if anything to do with Jews/Armenians and neither have anything to do with the Holocaust or Genocide. Again - if this presentation was such to actually discuss the history and the factors that caused the CUP and the Kurds and (various) Turks of the Ottoman Empire to begin slaughtering Armenians - then a discussion/presentation of the prior suffering of various Turkics at the hand of other orthodox and the contribution of such to the animosity against Armenians (one of many factors) - then yeah - I would say lets talk about it. But just to reference McCarthy's misleading and (as said) utrue claims adds nothing to any real or factual understanding of the Armenian Genocide. McCarthy's vaugue claims (largely from singular and much disputed/discredited sources) of some kind of Armenian civil war during this period just do not hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. To validate such poor (sponsor pleasing) (so-called) scholarship does this issue a great diservice and again is the equivilant of including such "scholorship" as irving and Fairusson in a discussion of the Holocaust (as anything other then truth twisting apologists for the perpetrators). Don't forget that the Genocide of the Armenians - the methodology, the enactment, the results were witnessed by a great many - even allies of the Turks - and all saw it for what it was. There is no evidence of any significant "civil war" "revolt" or any such thing during this period. What we have here is a government of a militarized Empire ruled by a twisted political party (again not at all unlike the situation in Germany in the 1930s/40s) that decided to employ the state aparatus - including quazi offical elemts such as the Special Organization irregulars - and under a mantle of legality and military necessity - proceede to act to eliminate an unwanted minority ethno-religious element in their midsts and to plunder such. This is what the Armenian Genocide is all about. If you do not accept this as fact then you are delusioned and/or in denial and are basically declaring yourself unable to process information and understand historical events. The evdence to support such a view is overwhelming - just as we have with the Holocaust. To deny the essential facts of either is equally suspect. --THOTH 17:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, this is very straightforward, the Turkish governments position is that it was not genocide but part of a civil conflict in which many hundreds of thousands of muslims also died. If this view can be verified by a scholar i.e. McCarthy, then it is Wikipedias job to include this opposing position. Please do not make personal remarks such as "you are delusioned and/or in denial", Wikipedia has no place for what you or I think about certain views, it is only our job to explain these views as neutral as possible, this you dont seem to understand. --A.Garnet 19:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy's "view" is just as verifyable as Irving's contetion that the Nazis never killed Jews using gas chambers - the only difference is that McCarthy has less of a true scholarly basis to make such untrue statements (Do we blame Jews for German deaths in WWII or even imply that somehow there is any legitimacy to present that Germans died in a war that occured at the same time that they were deliberatly killing/murdering Jewish civilians - is this in any way relevant to what the Holocaust was about - the lessons of it - the actual enacment of it? NO. Neither is the fact that Turkish soldiers died in Gallipoli or were killed by Russians at the front. Even the fact that many Turkish villages and inhabitants were destroyed by marauding Cossaks or such has no direct relevance to the Armenian Genocide and to present it as such is to perpetuate a lie and a particularly sinister one that is most insulting to Armenians and others who arte concerned with victims of genocide and the ability of the perpetrators to escape punishment for their foul deeds.--THOTH 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk less, edit more

I've just archived 648kb from this talk page. This is ridiculous. Why not just edit a bit more? If you want to go and discuss the issues, find a forum. This talk page is intended solely for discussing the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm guilty also here, sorry. I think someone should monitor the talk page and delet things that have nothing to do with the article, including mine. :) Fadix 21:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cats Suggestions

I will post suggestions and apply them to the article 24 hrs later if no objection is posted. If you think the change is inaproporate, please post your reasoning. Thank you. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Font in green is stuff I propose be added/rewritten, red is stuff I propose beeing removed/rewritten. Regular text is stuff I don't see a change is necesary. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I intend to not participate on any other discussion aside from this section. I will read them if prompted but I dont want to get involed. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I object. Do not make these changes.--THOTH 18:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro

  • {all material till first section) --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or the Armenian Massacre or the Armenian Relocation) is a term which refer to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of hundreds of thousands or over a million Armenians, during the government of Young Turks from 1915 to 1917.

  1. Reason: The official name of the event is a "relocation". --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Source: http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/relocation.htm --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Relocation is a term used by a fringe in the Academia, and can therefore have no place in the lead. Furthermore, as discussed, tallarmeniantale is not a valid source for anything, it fabricate, and this I have already shown. Fadix 21:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
That response conflicts with NPoV www.tallarmeniantale.com is a highly notable source. Its on top 10 of google hits. The offical definition of the incident is a relocation. Also thats how the Turkish Goverment referances to the incident. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
We've been there already, tallarmeniantale is NOT a notable source, it doesn't matter if it's first or last in google. Beside, I have already made a translation of the Arabic term which was used in Ottoman Turkish... the official Turkish foreign ministry translation use the term deportation. It is not an official version, the term relocation is used by a fringe in the Academia, the lead should make an introduction, or give a clue about the subject, it can not contain a term that is a fringe... and now you want to present such a minority view as official position. Fadix 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
So you are disputing that the incident was not officialy a relocation? Tallarmeniantale is a site disputing the armenian genocide it is top 10 ongoogle and is notable. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Relocation is an English term, Tehcir is derived from Arabic, and can hardly be translated as "relocation" contrary to what Halacoglu affirms. You can ask any Arab speaking(you won't have much difficulty to find them in Wikipedia) to translate the Arabic transliteration of the word. Gurun own retranscription of Envers law of evacuation, in its own Ottoman Turkish, use the term forced evacuation, which can also mean( the word Tehcir), destruction of the enemy through evacuation. Relocation also imply a successful movement of population in a preestablished destination... it is not the cases, because men and women were separated from the beggining, much like what happened to French Canadians in Accadie, when the British have separated the population. Relocation imply maintaining the population in another area. The "Basbakanlik Devlet Genel Müdürlük of the "Osmanli Arsivi Daire Baskanligi" which is the General Directorate of State Archives(Prime Ministry of the Turkish republic) official translation which is also published in the official Turkish foreign ministry website, is deportation and not relocation. Besides, the event called the Armenian Genocide, is not also called Armenian relocation, because even if we maintain your logic, the event would be the relocation, and what went wrong during that relocation. In short, neither relocation is official, and neither that term is used in the original Ottoman records, for the simple reason as the equivalent of "population transfer" was not used, which exist, since it has been used when reffering to the Greek and Turkish population exchange.
Please have a read of [1] --Cool Cat My Talk 02:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I already did, and already answered to it.
Tallarmeniantale is not a reputable neither notable website, Torque is the author of that website, the website copypasted wide range of materials which are known fabrication from Multu and his other aliases, the legendary newsgroups spammer. The website also slanders authors and people, makes racist statments. That website can in now way be used as reference. Fadix 00:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I am going to use it as referance on few occasions. You are welcome to not like it. So long as anything I get from them and follow the NPoV format I can use any website. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact you you will still be using a racist website, tells a lot about you Coolcat. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and uses only reputable sources, not what a racist has to say. This like it or not. Fadix 02:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
That conflicts with WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA --Cool Cat My Talk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
No, Coolcat, you can't just use any trashy website as a "reference" on Wikipedia. We are supposed to use recognized and important scholary sources here, so you will have to establish it as an important and a scholary source, in order to use it as a reference here. -- Karl Meier 07:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
People posting there according to the website is PHD professors. You are welcome to not like what they are saying, this doesnt mean you are entitled to disallow me adding it. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
How many times have I to tell you this. THE WEBSITE FABRICATE STATMENTS NEVER MADE. Is that clear for you? Since you can search Google archives, why don't you search my answers to Torque(the author of the website), in which I SHOW that statments attributed to people were FABRICATED!!! Like it or not, this website is not a credible source to be used in an Encyclopedia. Fadix 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry you do not have the authority to dismiss a web site of that notability. What is fabricated? According to who? Cite sources? I am well aware of certain "documents" armenians forged to "porove" the genocide. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
www.kultur.gov.tr [2] is an official page of the Turkish Goverment. It referances to an armenian relocation. Are you dismissing that one too? --Cool Cat My Talk 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat - this suggestion - to add the term "Armenian relocation" is quite absurd - as are your other suggestions. As you point out - the Turkish Government calls this/these events "relocation" - however outside of this (rather dubious) position (that of the perpetrators) - this position runs counter to that of the UN, various independent tribunals, the position of the Association of Genocide Scholars, hundreds of Holocaust and Genocide scholars (as indicated in full page newspaper adds and such), and - as has been clearly documented - the intent of Lemkin the originator of the word Genocide itself - coined in large part specifically to describe the mass killings and destruction of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks. So NO! The use of the term Genocide in this case has been proven and justified beyond a doubt. When the Holocaust section is renamed the "German internment of undesireables" then we can talk - until then let us stick to the facts and not spread sick and insulting denilaist propoganda.--THOTH 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Propoganda is a loaded term. I have cited at least one book which uses relocation in its title. Its well sourced I do not see a reason why it cannot bereferanced as "Relocation". From your statement "the Turkish Government calls this/these events "relocation"", since the turkish gov is a reputable source, that is perfectly fine. --Cool Cat Talk 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide.

Several facts in connection with the incident are a matter of ongoing dispute among scholars as well as beeng a diplomatic dispute between Armenia, and Turkey, as well as other parts of the international community) dispute. Although there is a level of agreement in the events leading to the incident, several scholars, most notably Justin McCarthy, as well as the Turkish government rejects the classification "genocide", and argue that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I as it is observed elsewhere in Europe as well. Despite this thesis, a significant portion of scholars follow the theisis referencing the incident as a genocide.

  1. Reason: Several scholars most notably Justin McCarthy does not see this as a "genocide" it isn't just a diplomatic dispute. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Reason: The incident should be refered as an incident rather that screeming "Genocide", it isn't for us wikipedia editors to decide. The reader can decide after reading the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Reason: I also believe it is not a simple Turkey vs International comminuty. Diplomatic arguments should be presented in their own section later. Also I believe Azerbaijan also supports Turkey's views. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Nope, your proposition is misleading, it is not because Zundel, Irving, Rudolf etc. dispute the Holocaust that it means that the Holocaust is disputed among scholars. The fact is that the association of Holocaust and genocide scholars call it genocide and most Western scholars. The relvant international bodies considers it such... this is not about Wikipedians deciding anything. But, there is one thing I agree with you, and I did change it before it was changed back, and it is the sentence "Several facts in connection with the genocide..." this sentence could be made neutral, the rest is already neutral, I don't see why McCarthys name should have a place in the lead, him out of various other scholars. I will be adding him soon, but not in the lead, it will happen in the process of footnoting. Fadix 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
McCarthy is at least one name disputing the genocide. There exists a significant number of scholars accepting and dismissing it's "Genocide" status. Wikipedia NPoV suggests not taking sides. The Incident is a more approporate term since it neither accepts or denies the genocide status. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
"most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars " establishes a baseless statistics. According to who? --Cool Cat My Talk 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
But you provide no justification here, why McCarthys name should be in the lead, there are thousands of scholars, yet you want to have placed McCarthys name on the lead. As for the term incident, we've been there already, you got not concensus there, please accept others decision. Incident is not an appopriate term. Most Western scholars is a statistical fact. We've been there already, the largest Worldwide body including most Holocaust and Genocide scholars recognize it as such and even call it undeniable. I am not building statistics here, even revisionists like McCarthy recognize the genocide version is accepted by the majority. Fadix 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a loaded statement. Can you base the "most" statistic to something. If it is so widely known a site should have it. Correct NPOV format is: According to "source", "foo" is "bla bla". Fine he can go else where in the article, I am only concerned with the intro atm so I dont care about the rest for now. Incident is an aproporate word because at least Turkey and McCarthy denies that this is indeed a "genocide". Thats a very significant POV. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Not quite right, the "most" is not only a question of "according to sources," this is as true as saying that Turkeys majority religion is Islam. The number of works that have been published in scholarly publications and books makes it obvious as to the proportion of those maintaing a position against another. This is about statistics, it is not according to sources. "Incident" is unacceptable term, you want to replace a term used by a majority, with a term that suggest a civil war, which is a thesis rejected by most scholars. As I said, I accept that part can be made more NPOV, but object to what you are proposition, because it will make that part of POV than it is. Fadix 00:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It is loaded and baseless. Nor is it relevant just because the majority says something doesnt necesarily make it right hence in an open minded enviorment, reader should be able to read article without an initial bias. It serves no purpos on explaining the events of early 1900's. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
No it is not, no where it is said that the what the majority maintains is the truth, that most scholars in the field believe is very relevant and important to be included in the lead. We've been there already, and it is not a biases. As I can see, you haven't changed a bit. Fadix 02:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Who says there is a majority in views? It is a loaded claim without any basis. Feel free to cite sources but I strongly believe this does not belong to lead. This conflicts with WP:NPR as well. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
For the billionth time. "The Association of Genocide Scholars" is a worldwide organization, the largest organization which includes most of the researchers in the field of genocide studies. IT OFFICIALLY call it a genocide and consider it as undeniable. Just recently the organization wrote a letter to the President of Turkey. Which means, that most who write about the topic, do call it such. This being the cases, this is an established thing. They've recognized it, it is not "according to" ..., and it is very important to know in the lead, that those that specialize in the field mostly recognize it as such. We've been there, and you still want it to get it removed. Call any administrator here RIGHT NOW, and let see if this conflict with any Wikipedia policy. Fadix 16:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine a certain community sees it as genocide. A certain community does not. You mean anybody not a member of that association cannot be a notable scholar? People write letters everyday. That doesn't create a majority. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - once again your suggestions are false and misleading. This issue is not a dispute between Turkey and Armenia - in fact it is not a dispute at all. Their is no real dispute concerning the events that comprised the Armenian Genocide. Armenian males were drafted then disarmed, put to forced labor and then were slaughtered. The remaining Armenian women, elderly and children were systematically taken from their homes and killed in a variety of manner including marching many leagues without food or water as well as direct killing. There is a huge body of direct eyewitness evidence that supports these facts and supports the contention that this program was directed by the CUP as the controlling element of the Ottoman Turkish Government and that the intention was to annhiliate the Armenians as a people and eliminate them from Anatolia. These are facts and the body of evidence that supports these facts is considerable. The existance of Turkish counter-claims and of certain scholars who trumpet such are examples of Genocide denial that in fact are an ongoing part of the crime. I fully believe that both a full listing of the evidence regarding the genocide - including eyewitness accounts - particualry from offical government sources as well as a full account of the Government of Turkey's sponsored denial is in order in this section (or as an addendum or such). In this regard we can examine who McCarthy is, what he is claiming and why and also the various refuations of his claims - of which there are many. And if you or others insist on listing McCarthy as a source of counterclaims to the Genocide then I would argue that the article needs to enumerate the very many scholars and their positions that verify the Genocide - including the specific points they raise and the sources/proof for such etc. What do you say to this? --THOTH 18:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not in the know of any details on diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia I think.
  1. Turkey has shut its borders to Armenia on the basis of Armenia insisting on its "Armenian Genocide" claim.
  2. Armenia requests cash and territory as well as an offical recognition of Armenian Genocide.
  3. Azerbaijan does not trade with Armenia either. So there is a dual embargo.
  4. Iran does not trade much with anyone due to US sanctions and I do not know how much Armenia trades with Georgia.
All this should be mentioed in the diplomatic sphere of the dispute.
Only a minority of world nations (out of 198 UN recognised nations) regocnised Armenian genocide officialy. Most recognition does not go beyond law books either although I am well aware of the Swiss issue mentioned above. --Cool Cat Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I ask you to drop your "Genocide denial" namecalling, it doenst contribute to this discussion. Eyewitness accounts can be quite inaccurate. In ww2 reprts of soldiers wandering around in no mans land rather beseark were not uncomon, loosing a relative/soulmate can affect people quite drasticaly esspecialy if they start loosing several of them. I am not saying we can ignore Eyewitness accounts, I am suggesting however we can approach them with some skepticism. What I want to achive here is first base exiting article on facts and then improve it with more content. Currently this artilce worths no more than 10 cents since its not based on anything. --Cool Cat Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Forget McCarthy in lead. I just dont see why are you trying to keep the lead "loaded" with pro genocide claim that at least the turkish gov is disputing? --Cool Cat Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Third Paragraph

For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll. The events is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide.

  1. Reason: I do not see the purpose this is serving. Peoples death does not automaticaly constitute to the UN definition of genocide. Technicaly the death of one individual could be a genocide. At what sense is it beeing compared to the Holocaust? People compare apples and phase pistols, I do not quite understand. Also details regarding it's diplomatic status is already has been discussed. The fact that several countries recognised the incident as a "genocide" is a detail that should be (and is) discussed later in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
That looks like original reserach to me. Our purpose here isn't to engage in such an analyses and syntheses ourselves, but depict the analyeses and syntheses of notable individuals, governments and organizations. El_C 22:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Number of people deaths alone is not genocide, but this has more to do with the death tool during the evacuation..., which was over 50%, and this according to the UN could be termed genocide. I admit this is not clear, it should be clarified, but it is obvious that the statment here was about the decision taken against the Armenians that made the majority of them lose their lives. Fadix 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Death tool? You mean method of the killing was more than 50% effective? You said there is a disagreement in the number of dead months ago. How can we talk about the percentage of deaths if we have no clue how many died? Accoring to who 50%+ died? --Cool Cat My Talk 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Then you agree the Normandy Invasion was also a genocide of Americans and Germans. I am sure both sides were shooting to kill the other "race" or "ethnicity". Since the majority of either side died. Also is the battle of Glapolli genocide against the allies and the Turks? (since both sides in total lost just about equal number of people) --Cool Cat My Talk 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a disagreement, those things are covered in the other entry covering the losses,... but it is a matter of fact that the official Ottoman figures, German, Austrian official figures all concorde and suggest an over 50% death toll. And don't forget that this is the talk page, and me mentioning over 50% is an example, and I have not written this in the article.
Comming to the Normandie invasion, this is irrelevant, where in Normandie people were sent in the desert, and where over half of a population died in desert or killing from a special organization(beside cases such as the destruction of the European Jews under the Third Reich)? Fadix 22:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Stay on topic please I dont care about Jews in this article. Normandy beach with constant gunfire was the most deadly front in WW2. Thousands died to progress a meter towards the German front. In Normady People were bombed back to the stone age by Allied and Germain Air raids as well as Allied naval bombardment. It was a street by street fight. After WW2 Europe was basicaly a number of craters. Untill Syria, Turkey does not have deserts. Armenians did not march through deserts untill they reached what today is Syria. I know the region quite well working at GAP. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
You brought Normandie and tell me to stay on topic because I bring the Jewish cases. That's weird, because it seems that the comparaison of genocides would be more in topic than bringing Normandie. Oh and, while you claim knowing the region well, it seems that you ignore one important thing. Syria was PART of the Ottoman Empire, and Armenians were moved into the desert. Again, I ask you, where in Normandie, civilians were taken by force and forced to march in the desert. Where in Normandie, prisoners were released from prisons to be sent to target civilians. Most Armenians died in such conditions, your comparaison with Normandie doesn't make much sense. Fadix 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Moving along I still dont see what any of the red material serves. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sigh... The region armenians passed from is less than pleasant. Assuming it was as cold as while I was around, it is quite clear that migrating armenians had great will power. This doesnt automaticaly however warrant genocide claims. During the Sarikamis campaign the majority of Turkish troops died due to cold. According to my knowlege no one is talking about a genocide against Turks for that. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Del-El-Zor is not cold, never really cold, you've probably been there in another univers where it was cold. Armenians were not migrating. Sarikamis campaign targeted soldiers, who were armed and sent to fight under Envers sick megalomanic impossible plans, while in the cases of the Armenians, in was the population that was targeted. Beside, this discussion is useless. Fadix 02:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, they were migrating or else what were they doing? Camping? Sarikamis campaign was an order for thousands of soldiers to march in cold with summer wear. Definately not a wise strategy but why isn't that genocide? Armed people die as well when it comes to marching over snow -30C cold. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
All I am suggesting is that you apriciate the other sides view. You don't have to accept it. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I still do not see what the material I propose removed serves. Half of it are details that dont belong to lead. Half of it isnt Encyclopedic at all (what kind of comparassion, by who?). --Cool Cat My Talk 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with this statment per se. Of course there are many more "proofs" that can be called upon to substantiate the use of "genocide" etc. The statement itself is no worse or no better then much of the rest of the article - which is not necesarily an endorsement on my part - as I see the presentation as generally unclear, unorganized and unscholarly. However the statment itself is non problematic in isolation IMO. --THOTH 18:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

and often draws comparison with the Holocaust means nothing intelligable. So you suggest what Armenians were gassed to death? What kind of comparasion and what purpose does this serve in lead at all? Are western sources more reputable than eastern northern and soulthern sources? It implies the "west" bias. Which should be established better and explained LATER in the article. Lets see these western sources in action, not in lead. --Cool Cat Talk 21:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

edit point

The discussion is over. You have not changed, not even a bit. Fadix 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Kawaii! Instead of ordering me around can you mature please? --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


why?

There are a number of intelligent questions that in my opinion requires attention. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Why would Turks waiste resources to massacre Armenians by forcing them to migrate. People dwill not go on a joirney by force unless you escort them. I don't see any credible source claiming Armenians matched through the montains of anatolia unguarded. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Why did they stop? Surely there were some Armenians alive left in the region (in the millions) and Turks were completely in control of the Eastern front after the Russian Revolution (and russians pulled out completely). Turkish soldiers were in control of a large reagion reaching Azerbaijan, including Armenia of course. Why not finish the job? --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Why does Armenia decline to open its archives? --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Why does no one mention the oppressive ASALA exterminationg the opposite pov. The commander in charge of the Armenian relocation was murdered without a trial. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. 24 April 2004. Michigan State University, Armenian Genocide comemoration, sponsored by the Armenian Lobby. I was a part of it. I listened to the opposing views with an open mind in a civilised tone. Everyone knew about the Armenian Genocide, and how "barbaric Turks" are and how "Horrible Turkey" is (though few people can locate Turkey/Armenia on a map). It was grafitied to every sidewalk on campus, even on urinals. I can tell more people knew about this "Armenian Genocide" on campus then the Holocaust. Such extreme mesures are not taken by Jews surviving the Holocaust, the worst case of Mass murder in human history as far as I know. Why are armenians trying to generate a public opinion among Americans? --Cool Cat My Talk 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
What purpose does this diatribe serve? These questions go beyond the scope of Wikipedia to answer in isolation, in so far as it remains ungrounded and unreferenced in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Turn to the shcolarship, collect, synthesize, and present your findings. Thus far, they are insufficient due to their anectodal, unsourced nature. El_C 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You can understand now my desperation. While he makes claims after the other, I have to answer back by documentations, works, research etc..., and then, he drags me in a worthless discussion that has nothing to do with the article at hand. And above all, he pathologicaly lies.(one example among many, historians being killed by ASALA) I just hope that this time, the Arbcom will take the necessary decision so that I can finaly not have him disturbing the process of imporvement of the article. Fadix 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me elaborate. --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Legaly (UN) we can only talk about genocide if Turks intended to kill the armenians, rather than the official claim of relocation. Why bother "relocating" them when there are much more effective methods of killing? --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. If Turks indeed wanted to massacre the Armenians, why did they stop. After a significant portion of Armenians "migrated" there were still a number of Armenians that stayed where they are. They were under ottoman rule for at least a brief period of time. --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. ASALA blew up quite a number of people. Some being historians agreeing to the Turkish thesis. It was basicaly suicide for a historian in US, Europe, or elsewhere to disagree with the armenian thesis. Death threats were common. --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. The Armenian lobing rises the question on how neutral western sources? Surely at least some were affected by the not so neutral comemorations? --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the point of the questions? I am merely pointing out on certain things that rises the idea that Turkish thesis could be the true story and hence warants mention in the article instead of an ovewhelming opoosing POV. Article is designed to prove the Armenian Genocide and sheds little light to the path Armenians had taken for example, or any other details. If I had a map I would upload. --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered in the article or even here but it rises an interesting point I think. --Cool Cat Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I already made 3 suggestions. 1 sourced (Armenian Relocation thing), 2 asking for sources or request to move material to be discussed later. --Cool Cat Talk 13:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been shown that the methods employed to exterminate Armenians - consisting to a great degree of forced migration leading to starvation - was both quite efficient as well as lending itself to political cover - ie the claim of deportation/relocation and associated justifications could be used as a pretext to hide the intent etc (this largely failed BTW - except among guilible Turks and other true believers in the great lie etc. And CoolCat asks why did they stop with the job incomplete? My response - where now is the nation of Armenia in Anatolia? Where is the presence of the vibrant Armenian people in the lands inhabited by them for thousands of years? (also Coolcat is claiming that millions of Armenians were in this area after the Genocide - funny - as most Genocide deniers [falsely] claim there were barely one million Armenians in Anatolia to begin with....And I fail to see the validity of any of your other points here (ASALA and the rest...). You talk about so-called death threats against those opposing the claim of Genocide - I respond - just because one Turk attempted to kill the Pope does it make all Turks pope-killers? I also think that the recent issue of Turkey prosecuting those who have spoken out regarding the genocide in Turkey is far more relevant. Here we have a nation denying its history and internally enforcing such false belief through laws restricting freedom of speech while at the same time such a nation is sponsoring academics with preconditions of acceptance of the official history as promulgated by Turkey - pathetic. This shameful record must be highlighted and exposed in Wikipedia for the casual reader to truly understand what is going on here and so that a proper understanding of the degree of denial and the fact that this is essentially an offical government sponsored version of Holocaust denial applied to the Armenian Genocide. --THOTH 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV suggests "genocide denialism" or whatever name-calling you prefer is a valid pov. --Cool Cat Talk 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Genocide denialism is just as valid as a POV as Holocaust denialism - there is no difference - only that in the case of the Armenian Genocide the Government (and people) that is the sucessor to those responsible for the criminal acts has never been fully called to task in the international arena and the (Turkish) Government and society is lacking in maturity and modernity and believes that they can continue to attempt to rerite history in a way that perpetuates false hyper-nationalistic and racist nation building myths at the expense of truth. They will only suceed in perpetuation of this Genocide if those of us who know the truth allow their falsities and distortions to remain unchallenged and if we fail in propoerly and thouroughly explaining the history and events so that the ignorant cannot be fooled by the lies this government and its nationalistic suppports attempt to perpetuate. --THOTH 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

--THOTH 21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)==Coolcat recent change==

I have reverted Coolcat change, because relocation is not an alternative, and is not used as alternative for the term Armenian genocide. It is entirly a different position. It is like adding in the entry Quantum Mechanic, Super String as an alternative term for the words Quantum Mechanic. I have tried to explain him those things, but he would not listen. Relocation is not inclusive and is another thesis, another interpretation, this entry is about the position called Armenian genocide, and also includes its critics, for this reason the term "Armenian relocation" can not be used as alternative term. Fadix 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Who uses "Relocation" as an alternative term? Please cite your sources, Coolcat. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, some (several being govermental) sites, although I do not care about the contents of these sites they do reference to an armenian relocation:

--Cool Cat Talk 15:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Officaly Armenians were relocating, in the process many died (rising the question "was this a Genocide?"). --Cool Cat Talk 15:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Those articles of course contradict Coolcat thesis that the term Armenian relocation is an alternative to the word Armenian genocide.

Let examine Coolcat “sources.”


What Coolcat did was to search “Armenian relocation” and then, finding those, he didn’t bothered reading what he found. Using the same logic, I can for instance search “Super String” and finding that, I would claim that I have found an alternative term to what is called Quantum Mechanic, which of course is ridiculous.

The first link, present the official Turkish government translation of Ottoman said archives(There are records in the German archives that show some of them to be manipulated, but that is another story for now). As I said previously, the official Turkish government translation of the word that Halacoglu translate as relocation, is deportation. The link Coolcat present is in fact what I have been saying… one can search on that page, the word “deportation” and he will see that the large majority of the translations were “deportation,” in fact, as I said, the term itself means forced evacuation, and has a second definition which means destroying the enemy by way of kicking them out. The etymology is Arabic, and I have proposed to Coolcat to ask an Arabic speaking about this, and he will see that they will confirm it.

Coolcat in fact, did not pay attention to what was in this link, let refer to the No. 71 document that those in charge of the archives published by mistake without paying attention that it was about the special organization and their order to kill Armenians. If Coolcat has the official Volume published in Ankara in 1994, titled: “Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler” it is on p. 69. But as I am sure that he does not have the volume itself, let refer to the one that is in the first link he provides.

http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/2b_071.htm

It is a matter of fact, that all the translation of the Ottoman Turkish is not presented there.

Let post the full translation.

“It has recently been reported that massacres of Armenians and Christians without distinction as to sect have been organized within the province, and that in Mardin, for example, some seven hundred people from among the Armenians and other Christian inhabitants were recently taken outside of the city at night and, with due authorization, slaughtered like sheep by those individuals who had been brought from Diyarbakir, and that the total of those killed to date in these massacres is estimated at two thousand persons, and that there are fears that, if a speedy and definite end is not put to this, then the Muslim inhabitants of neighboring provinces will rise up and engage in a general slaughter of Christians. As it is not appropriate that the disciplinary and administrative measures adopted with regard to the Armenians be extended to the other Christians, [this situation] will have a very negative efect on public opinion; consequently, [it is directed that] such practices which threaten the lives of Christians indiscriminately [must] be stopped immediately and a report of the situation be provided.”

This is what the Turkish historian Halil Berktay says about this particular record.

“…he isn't calling for an end to what is being done to the Armenians, but rather calling for massacres against other Christians to be prevented. In the first sentence, he explains, and even reminds, that massacres have been organized. He states that, in the most recent incidents in Mardin, some 700 Armenians and other Christians have been slaughtered `like sheep', and that thus a total of 2 thousand people have been killed. He refers to those doing the killing as `the people who were earlier transferred from Diyarbakir'; if this is not a reference to the `special organization' I cited in the interview published on 9 October, what is it? He states as well the fear that the Muslim population in neighboring provinces will rise up and slaughter all the Christians. He notes this not as a mere claim, but rather as actual information: he says that `it has been reported'. Let's look at the second sentence: He says that the `disciplinary and administrative measures' applied to the Armenians are not appropriate for application to other Christians, and should be halted immediately. Does he say `Don't kill the Armenians either'? No, he doesn't say this. Does he say that `We only ordered deportations; what are these massacres?'? He says nothing of the sort. Only, the word `katliam' (`massacre') repeated several times in the first sentence becomes `Ermeniler hakkinda ittihaz edilen tedabir - i inzibatiye ve siyasiye' (`the disciplinary and administrative measures adopted with regard to the Armenians') in the second sentence.” Those in charge of the archives, when they have decided to include this in the volume, knew that people that would read it would think that this record will show that the Ottoman government was taking measures to protect the Armenians. But again, it has been established during the Court Martial, that the Ottoman government was using vague terms such as “measures” to mean extermination, the term deportation was even equated with the term extermination. Also, those in charge, thought that people that will read this statement, will not understand who were those brought for the purposes of the massacres, if they did not knew anything about the special organization.

Also, the records in the first link Coolcat present are known to have been altered, and I have given one example of such cases, when for the same record of 90%-10% population quota, the German transcription placed the 90% to be destroyed, while the version in the Ankara volume, it is replaced by “deportation.”

The second link, Coolcat present, is the “research” of Halacoglu, in which, it is claimed that only 400 thousand Armenians were moved, and that only 50 thousand died. Still, this in no way show us that Armenian relocation is an alternative for the word Armenian genocide, but rather that the movement of population is translated by Halacoglu as relocation and not deportation.

The third link, is again a “research” by Halacoglu, as the number of Armenians returning back, it does not show, that “Armenian relocation” is an alternative term for the words “Armenian genocide.”

The forth link, is a known racist website, and even there, the link Coolcat present, does not show that the term “Armenian relocation” is used as a synonym for the thesis called “Armenian genocide.” As I said, it is a thesis in itself, and could maybe have its own entry.

I will even not bother opening the website armenianreality.com, it is a racist website and is far from being credible, for no matter what they claim. The choices of the domain name itself show us how screwed up are those that have build it. Does anyone see me using sites with names like turkishlies.com, Turkishreality.com ?

The fifth link, I already answered, the sixth, doesn’t still present any statements, that “Armenian relocation” is a synonym to call the theses “Armenian genocide,” the seventh neither. Number 8. shows the quite opposite, and Number 9, is again Halacoglu theses, and does not show the term being used to mean “Armenian genocide.”

To conclude, as I have shown, the official Turkish translation, used in their own Volume, is deportation, even if it was relocation, still, wanting that to be an alternative word, is to misunderstand why alternative words are used. “Armenian relocation” is a thesis alone, which can have its entry… which can start by something such: “It is a thesis that propose that Armenians were removed to be resettled, rather than being deported or forcibly evacuated, this position is maintained by some Turkish scholars, etc.” Fadix 18:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So no soul on earth uses "Armenian Relocation"? I just cited a book title (Realities Behind the Relocation). Armenians were sent to another ottoman terriory, yes? They moved from poit A to B yes? What is the problem? Oh and I ask you to summerise your cases. No one will read a post 8kb long. --Cool Cat Talk 18:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
So as various people cite Super String..., you fail to understand again. The entry is about what is called the Armenian genocide, it is about the thesis that is called Armenian genocide and its critics, the thesis called "Armenian relocation" is not inclusive of everything the thesis that is called Armenian genocide includes. It CAN NOT be used as alternative for this same reason. You seem to understand pretty well computer science, which also shows that you are able of some abstract thinking, why don't you use abstract thinking to at LEAT, trying to understand what the others say, I am not asking you to understand, but only TRYING to understand. I do not oppose the creation(of an article) of the position called "Armenian relocation" ..., but it is obvious, very obvious, that the term Armenian relocation can not be used as alternative for this thesis, the article is about. And I repeat, it is like adding Super string as a synonym for the word Quantum Mechanic... Super String has its own entry, and is a position that exist, but this would not justify the uses of that term as a synonym or alternative word for the words Quantum Mechanic. Now, before answering, just TRY understanding what I say, for onces, just accept the possibility that maybe I am not opposing you because it is you that is making the proposition or that I am refusing because of my own POV. Fadix 18:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose that Coolcat and others who believe (in the fairy tales) that he does open a new Wikipedia section entitled "the Armenian relocation" - perhaps somewhere between the section on the Brothers Grim and the one concerning Mother Hubbard. I expect that we might also see there a section submitted by David Irving concerning the progressive civil rights laws of the Third Reich and perhaps a ethnogrophy entry concerning "Mountain Turks" (and their first class treatment as citizens of Turkey...)....in the meantime let us post factually in the section correctly and accuratly titled - "The Armenian Genocide".....--THOTH 20:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, I don't think a new article titled Armenian deportation/relocation is that a bad idea. It could cover evacuation of the Armenians as presenting the different positions about the evacuation, excluding the massacres etc. Fadix 23:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix? Is that you Fadix? What Armenian deportation/relocation? I assume(d) that you are aware that the "deportation" orders and sunsequant justifications and untruthful explanations were mearly a cover for Genocide. Are you forgeting Ackam's analysis - where he references the fact that no provisions were provided for any type of relocation/deporation - that the lack of such and the conduct of the Turkish Gendarmes and Special Organization in herding the convoys through desolate reagions and encouraging and participating in their depravation is proof enough of intent....And what sort of "deportation/relocation" of a population includes only the women, children and elderly? What about the men? Aren't men part of the population - and wouldn't one expect that men would be neccesary and included if there were some intent to actually move a population? These facts, as well as the confirmed existance and admissions regarding secret orders and the intent of the "deportation" (including the fact that those of Western Anatolia were also "deported" etc) are further proof of the fallacy of any claim that there was in fact a "relocation" - that there was any intent other then slaughter and annhiliation of the Armenian people/population/nation. Need I also remind reader of the thousands of eyewitness - offical government, missionary, survivor and otherwise testimony that describes countless acts of slaughter and deprivation - the same over and over and over - and the pattern of Ottoman government action that demonstrates clear intent. This was a barbaric Genocide consiting of massacres and killings of innocents coldly enacted and conducted for political purposes and I am sick and tired of attempts by the Turkish Government and their various supporters to attemtp to whitewash these crimes. And those of us who know and understand these facts should not tolerate these shameful efforts to deny the facts and this Wikipedia article needs to be strengthened and not diluted and the planning and enactment and subsequant and continuing denial of these crimes needs to be explained and thoroughly illustrated. The current article is both insuficiant in this regard and is severely comprimised by wishy washy and unclear text. Facts are facts - the support exists - the denial is thoroughly discredited - and this needs to be presented as such. Likewise the history leading up to the Genocide and the events following require much better presentation to allow the reader who is unfamiliar with tis history to properly understand the answers to the questions of why - in addition to understanding the how - and ultimatly of course it needs to clearly present (comitted by) who. --THOTH 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I think you did not understand me and also think you still have difficulty to understand how exactly Wikipedia works. In Wikipedia there are entries about creationist science, there are entries about various things which are dubvious at best. Wikipedia present positions, not what the truth is. "Armenian deportation/relocation" would be an article about the movement of Armenians, this does not meant that it will deny the Armenian genocide, it just will present such a position and its critics. Somethins such: "The Armenian deportation is the term used to define the evacuation of the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire. Some Turkish scholar prefer to use the term "relocation" claiming that deportation means evacuation outside a country or state, while according to them Armenians were not evacuated outside, but rather inside the Empire. The term relocated is also used by those scholars often as synonym for the word resetled, because most of those that us this term don't accept that Armeninians were victims of genocide, even though, most scholars affirm the contrary etc..." This is the type of article that will be developped. And I repeat, this has nothing to do with denying, or permitting some to deny the Armenian genocide. If someone search "Armenian relocation" he should know for what this term is used, and who support such theses and who don't etc. Fadix 15:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Fadix - it would be appropriate to be presented/discussed in a section entitled: "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". To present it any other way would be actively promoting falsehood. Is this Wiki? --THOTH 17:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Please do not expect me or anyone to recognise the incident as a "Genocide", just like no one should be expected to recognise it as a "Relocation". The article should present claims from various scholars explicitly stating WHO says what. This is a historic article with no to little of the material with any basis. I see NO primary sources. Armenian childeren got gassed? Who says so? The burdon of proof falls on your side. I should be able to access any claim you make here without any difficulty. --Cool Cat Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Expecting people to be "brainwahsed" with repeating "Before the Genocide", "After the genocide", "During the genocide" is like me declaring PKK terrorist and forcing it. Since wikipedia does not determine if PKK is terrorist or not (and pkk is accepted as a terrorist organisation more widely than Armenian Genocide is recognised as "Genocide"). --Cool Cat Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Relocation is a valid term to refer to the incident weather you like it or not. I cited a book with it's title. --Cool Cat Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Also my suggestions earlier on stays I will work on that extent because I want badly to improve the article quality here. --Cool Cat Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is imaterial whether or not you recognize anything. The fact that it is well documented that Lemkin coined the term precisely to describe what occured to the Armenians makes use of the term genocide entirely legitimate - in addition to it clearly meeting all other stated criteria for genocide - UN definitions and optherwise. So you have no point here except as a troll who is trying to disrupt things and obscure the truth based on a very specific agenda. Again - the comparisons to those who deny the Holocaust are most appropriate here. There is more then sufficient evidence - eyewitness - official, unofficial, confessions, trial verdicts and so and and so forth that paint the picture of what occured most clearly. That there exists a position that seeks to deny the truth of what occured - that this position is solely held by the Government of Turkey, variuous Turksih nationals, and researchers that are directly sponsored by the Turkish Government - the most prominent by a Government institution (Turkish Historical Society) founded specifically to bolster an historic perspective designed to justify pre-concieved historagraphy supporting a propogandistic political position concerning the Turkish State and Turkish history - real and imagined - is also fact and needs to be fully explained in this or a related article. These are all pertinent circumstances surounding the Armenian Genocide - the truth of it - its extreme level of documentation from a mirad of sources - and the persistent political campaign of denial - including such efforts as yours on this very site. In the meantime I concur with the suggestion that a comprehensive listing of scholars and scholarly organizations with a position concerning the Armenian Genocide should be itemized.--THOTH 21:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I am tired of this, please do not engage in a long debate with Coolcat, it is unconstructive, and he'll only tell you how neutral he is etc. When the fact is that both of you still don't get what NPOV is(the closest Coolcat will come to, is to say you to do things that he himself doesn't do), but at least you do not harm Wikipedia because you do not edit the article but rather discuss. For your comment regarding "Turkish government denial." There can an article about this, since such position exist. See Wikipedia as a huge book, in which you can search about things, regardless of truth. Now please, stop criticizing the article and present clear alternatives, and I will neutralize your propositions. But consider that in some way or another, what is already in this article should be included with your proposition, in some way or another. Something I give you is that the articles English quality is not the best thing.
Present your propositions here, and we will discuss about them. Discuss them NOT with Coolcat but to others, present them here in the talk page. Fadix 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The partial edit

I reverted the first change made by the new member, because it was against the principle that Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, but what is said about the event. Fadix 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid reverts and discuss matters in talk no mather how evil or immoral peoples edits are. Agressive reverting alienates users from wikipedia which damages thw wiki community, if you want to remove something, instead comment it out. If someone wants to remove something restore and comment it out and discuss so we can reach a concensus. --Cool Cat Talk 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Two things, either you did not read my partial revert, or either you are using this as way to attempt my credibility. Let this to be known for other users. My rv. had no words removed, in fact, it had added words which were deleted. "what is called" was deleted, and I added it back, because I am trying to maintain the Armenian genocide article as neutral as possible so that people like Coolcat don't come here crying about how unfair the article is. Also, the edit of the other user, was against Coolcat position, which would have resulted most certainly with Coolcat reverting it himself, but since I did it, he used the occasion to tell me to stop reverting. Fadix 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right, I am not aware on exaclty what you have reverted, I am not watching your edits. I am just suggesting try to evade reverts, regardless of content change. It only serves to irritate, and annoy people although I dont bellieve that being your intention. I kindly ask you try harder not to revert. --Cool Cat Talk 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I DID never really engage in a revert war, I have never been blocked for 3RR, if my memory serves me well, I think you on the other hand have been blocked not once, not twice by THREE times under the 3RR rule. Fadix 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I have checked the change, I am glad we are underway again but I please ask you to drop phrases such as "crying about how" we will have a more satisfying and productive discussion. --Cool Cat Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The term "productive discussion" used by you, would be an oxymoron. And that you are glad or no, doesn't change a thing, because I said, people like Coolcat, and not Coolcat, so this rv. was not made for you, you are the last of my preocupations. ~~
Let's go on. --Cool Cat Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide

So what do you suggest we do with the second paragraph as it is quite messy. --Cool Cat Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ~

There is no let's go on, I told you, I will not discuss the matter with you. Fadix 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To have productive and controlled article creation or modification all the users should aggree on the same terms and conditions. If some users edit article without discussion, when most of users are aggred that every change should be discussed, those undiscussed changes should be reverted back (rejected) unconditionally. Rules should work equally for all the users without exceptions. So, Fadix has done clearly right thing which should be appreciated, especially because of his revert contradicts to his position. We should follow his example. --Gvorl 14:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Ex suggestion revised

Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide.

For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll. The events is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide.

Several facts in connection with the incident are a matter of ongoing dispute among scholars as well as beeng a diplomatic dispute between Armenia, and Turkey, as well as other parts of the international community) dispute. Although there is a level of agreement in the events leading to the incident, several scholars, as well as the Turkish government rejects the classification "genocide", and argue that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I as it is observed elsewhere in Europe as well. Despite this thesis, a significant portion of scholars follow the theisis referencing the incident as a genocide.

I realise you do not want such a change, what alternative do you suggest? I have coppied the actual suggestion from the degraded conversation, cleaner start. --Cool Cat Talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling the Armenian Genocide an "incident" is akin to calling WWII an incident. This is entirely incorrect. An "incident" is a specific singularity - like smashing a plane into a building. The enactment of the Armenian Genocide - the various wide ranging plans, actions, deceptions and such taken by the CUP, Ottoman Governemnt officials and the current government of Turkey itself and it s supportors such as yourself - causing the continuous great suffering and abuse and untimely and often gruesome death experienced by hundreds of thousands of Armenians - by nearly all Armenians in Anatolia - those who survived and those who died and were killed etc - cannot be cheapened by calling such a mere "incident". And neather can you cheapen the memory of such criminal and vicious actions for the decendents of those Armenian who survived such times and persevered in the face of the brutal and criminal Ottoman Government campaign to eliminate them.

Likewise it is an entirely incorrect assertion that the "dispute" is between Armenia and Turkey. First it is not so much a "dispute" as an attempt to revise the historical record along false and misleading lines to obscure the true history and the complicity of the Turkish government and people in these shamful acts. And this effort is being entirely undertaken by the Government of Turkey and (so-called) scholars that are in its pay and/or otherwise beholden to it. It is important that any mention of a "dispute" make these fact most clear. It also needs to be made most clear the amount of overwhelming support for the belief/contention or what have you among actual scholars and specifically Genocide scholars, Holocaust scholars, and historians in general that fully accepts the fact of the Armenian Genocide as such (and the CUP/Ottoman Turkish government as instigators responsible for such and the same and the Turkish and Kurdish people of the time as responsible for carrying out the actual acts of such) and again it needs to be made very clear that the word "genocide" itself has largely come about as a descriptor for precisely the series of actions, events and the result of the CUP/Ottoman Turkish campaign which was undertaken to and largely succeeded in its objectives to eliminate Armenians, Armenian presence, Armenian culture from Anatolia (and to plunder the assets of such people). The evidence of this planning - of the intentions - of the methodoloogy and of the result has beeen thoroughly and painstakingly documented and has been verifyied by accepted scholarship that is not serioulsy questioned by serious and objective scholars in any real sense - and the attempts to deny such - on the part of the current government of Turkey and those Turkish and non-Turkish (yet beholden to the Government of Turkey) academics to deny such evidence - such facts - such real history - is a most shamful and deceptive attempt to promote lies over truth and it constitutes a series of acts that themselves are properly characterized as part of the Genocide itself - that what they - and you - are attempting to do - is in fact a perpetuation of the Armenian Genocide. These facts need to be made clear in this presentation - not your weasel words that do nothing but expose the corruption of your thought and the uglyness of what you are attempting here in this article. --THOTH 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Curiosity About Facts & Figures

As a wikifan, i didn't change or add something in the page, mainly, because i don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject. But, there are many items which i feel 'uncomfortable' about the article.... -Motivation part is missing, altough it is a fact that there were pogroms against the Armenians, before WWI, effects of Armenian nationalism and revolts are not taken into account.... -Peak point for the genocide Diaspora is considered as 1915-1916, but all mentioned genocide Diaspora accounts are from east regions of present day Turkey, if it is a campaign of extermination against Armenians fueled by nationalist hatred, why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?.... -Van Resistance chapter conflicts with military history chronicles. Generally, it is considered that, when it was clear that, Imperial Russian Army was to capture Van in a few days, already organized groups like Dashnaks, revolted and they had gained the control of the city, the city was captured by Russians and Armenian units attached, on the 16th day of the revolt.... -Ottoman Government's decision of displacing Armenian citizens to southern parts of the country, seems reasonable, if you look from an administrative and military point of view (not humanitarian).... -Capacity of Ottoman Army to relocate huge numbers of civilians has to be discussed, please note that 1915 is the year that, Ottoman armies were fighting in Gallipoli with around 300.000 casualties, in Iraq with around 100.000 casualties, in Sarikamis with around 100.000 casualties, also, in Sinai and Palestine against British and was conducting a war in Yemen and Arabia against Arab rebels. Actual figures of Ottoman military presence has to be included in the article, it makes the distinction of 'massacre' and 'genocide'. If you consider the 1927 census of Turkey was 13.6 millions, i have doubts about how much manpower Ottoman Army could field for an organized genocide.... -Transportation system of Ottoman Empire has to be mentioned, without any railways available, displacing huge numbers of civilian without adequate food, water supplies, means of transportation and with very poor protection against gangs (eastern regions of Anatolia had lawless gangs even until 1960-1970 period), clearly would turn to 'death marches'.... -Relocating Armenian civilian population in the deserts of Syria caused definitly a disaster, considering the Ottoman Empire was at the brink of collapse and even couldn't feed, dress and equip their own armies.... Ottomans, served well for the Germans, by opening a new front against Russia in the Caucasus region, so the Russia could not use valuable resources against Germanny in the Eastern Front, but this, combined with Armenian desire for self-governing, like Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians had previously managed, resulted with huge losses of Armenian civilians.... Those events are not well documented as Holocaust (Germans were definitly better with archiving then the Ottomans), the losses and sufferings are beyond discussion, but, the main notion to call the events as 'Genocide', is debated and will be debated.... For wikipedia, as an open source, it is very difficult to maintain an article, disputed so much, but i propose to add above mentioned headlines as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.42.16.43 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You write "I don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject", then write lots more that prove that assertion to be true! Meowy 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
He actually knows what he is talking about and is just being modest. Nobody has enough knowledge about the subject (no documents exist that prove the genocide, memoirs of naim bey were lost by europeans), that's exactly why the genocide is disputed and unless somehow conclusive proof emerges for either recognition or denial, people will continue to dispute it. Everything he mentioned are valid arguments also used by various scholars. These are all issues/arguments that should have a place in the genocide article itself not on the denial page. Failing to mention these arguments, not having a denial section and even deleting these arguments when it is added by others because "it belongs in the armenian genocide denial article" violates POV_fork rule as QWL pointed out here [3]. I know this is the main article itself and not a fork but by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide article and banishing everything to the armenian genocide denial page you violated POV_fork rule. It is almost the same thing as creating a fork because they either created the denial article themselves so they could push their POV on the armenian genocide article or they basically forced others to create it by not allowing denial/doubt views on the armenian genocide article.
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
It is clear, I think, that the armenian genocide article doesn't represent all facts and major Points of View on the genocide and should be drastically rewritten. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There's something which is very amazing: do denialists imagine what the article on the Armenian Genocide would look like if it was really PoV? My two cents. Sardur (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? I am not a denialist by the way, I simply don't think there is conclusive proof the ottoman government ordered armenian civilians to be attacked. Talat pasha even said in his documents that he wanted to punish those who were responsible for attacking the armenian civilians. That is a big contrast with the nazi's who were proud of their racist doctrine and even at the nuremberg trials didn't change their mind. Talat pasha was known as a courageous man and I don't believe he would have denied the genocide if he really was responsible for it. Talat pasha was respected by the armenians before the war and has never shown any sign of racism/religious extremism. None of the young turks were racists or religious fanatics. The young turks were even co-founded by jews, greeks and armenians and were secular. I don't understand how when the war started these persons could so drastically change that they would want to exterminate the whole armenian race when they had been friends and colleagues with them before the war. War crimes were committed (also against turks in western regions and crimea) but that doesn't automatically mean the ottoman government ordered them. Most attacks were committed by local militia's, bandits, and scared villagers who with the fear of the approaching russian army took out all their stress on the armenians who they saw as collaborators with the enemy. I also doubt that the majority of the armenians who died, died of violence. I have seen the pictures of children and corspses on armeniapedia.org (it made me sick) and they were all extremely undernourished. I think most died as a result of the circumstances of the war. They might also have been killed by bandits, militia's, angry/scared mobs or even by ottoman soldiers. I really don't know. I only think that there should be conclusive proof before you recognize/accept such an accusation as the armenian genocide. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have such a high opinion of Talat, Ibrahim4048, then I suppose you will believe his own writings. The self-confessed ill-informed anon who started this thread asked "why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?". Talaat's own figures (cited here http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/Black-Book.pdf) for some vilayets (provinces), all of them in the western or central parts of Anatolia. Ankara - 1914 population: 44,661 Armenians, by 1917, 31,895 of them were deported. Izmit - 1914 population: 56,115 Armenians, by 1917 52,235 of them were deported. Kayseri - 1914 population: 47,947, by 1917 41,324 of them were deported. Sivas - 1914 population: 141,000 Armenians, by 1917 132,903 of them were deported. BTW, Talat's 1914 population figures seem small. For example, in all other sources the Armenian population of Sivas vilayet ranges from between 152,000 to 200,000. Meowy 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Just for curiosity. Is there a specific reason why armenians reject to leave the subject to historians? It doesn't make sense to me when all armenian arguments are based on unofficial data such as photos and diaries, which we don't know if they are real or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabalgasun (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL @ the above comment. Why don't they leave it to historians (holocaust deniers) to deny it for them instead of using their silly primary evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gruder (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I possibly won't debate or contribute to the article much. And I don't care much what you call hundreds of thousands civilians death since it is a great loss and tragedy already. As long as I know estimated realistic numbers of Armenian casualties were at least 300.000 and might be 500.000 which means a terrible massacre even if it is death by cold in winter, hunger or bullet. Rest are possibly forced conversions or such. The transportation system were bad it is true lots of Turkish people died on ships while exchange through Greece in later years too, during war food were not plenty, it was winter, armenians didn't protected well, ... but again that all don't justify such hundreds of thousands citizens' "death march" intentionally-unintentionally or half-intentionally. On the other hand, though it doesn't justify for such a big casualty or forced deportations, Armenian gangs also massacred a huge number of Turkish-Kurdish civilians in the area which is another undeniable fact. Article seems not depicting such events at least by a quick check if I am not mistaken. If I missed such a section just point it out for me. If the article not contains such balancing info it cannot be considered as an WP:NPOV article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The first who opened a sensless talk I shall remind:

BTW, as examples and some reasoning:
1. The Armenians in the west and everywhere were effected. For instance the 1915 the beheaded Armenian Elite wasn't living in the East only but mainly in Constantinople.
2. The motivation is a thing to be long discussed and can't be proven as, for instance, can't be explained for sure what the real motivation of the Holocaust, as it's obvious, that the understanding of "wrong race" is total crap, was. Your request to have it in the article seems to aim at undermining it's neutrality and push for POVs to dominate with all future consequences for the article.
3. You have already mentioned the reason of hatred yourself so what else do you want to know? Go to the books and links if u wish to know more of possible reasons, like economy etc. You will surely find interesting info for yourself.
But once again, for those who ignore the warnings, this is not a forum to discuss the Genocide!
Aregakn (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a place to discuss the inaccuracies of an article. Even if it's not why are you discussing it yourself? Are you incapable of understanding your own arguments?
1) The Armenian population of the Western provinces were in fact unaffected which numbered around 300 thousand. Only a fraction of these, less than 3 thousand who were accused to be conspiring against the state, were arrested.
2) You talk of neutrality and POV when the article uses forged documents as if they were real to support the genocide claim. At least have the decency of not talking about neutrality or POV if you're going to be so hypocritical.
You talk so much for someone claiming that this place is not a forum. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my first time adding to a forum, so apologies if I'm going about it incorrectly. This is a response to the comment up above about Talaat Pasha not being involved. In an interview with a journalist sympathetic with the Turkish government, Enver Pasha (not Talaat, that is true, but I doubt one was involved without the other, and Enver uses "we") replied to a question that implied he had little to do with the planning of the massacre. "You are greatly mistaken," he said. "We have this country absolutely under control. I have no desire to shift the blame on our underling and I am entirely willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.27.69 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to note for you, TheDarkLordSeth, that your comments about my capabilities and "how much I talk" are insults and that I hope this will be the first and the last time as well as I am expecting apologies and constructive dialogue instead of attacks. Hope this is clear! Aregakn (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Consider it an insult as much as you want as it would only be a pathetic attempt of an argument. If you have any concrete thing to say, say it. If you don't then you can't simply call other peoples criticism of your posts as an insult. If you have anything sound to say than that would be a constructive dialogue. At first you say and even put a sign about how it's not a place to discuss and then continue to be a part of the discussion. I have every right to question your abilities as you can't even realize the meaning of the sign you put yourself. Please refrain yourself from making such foul comments in the future. Consider yourself warned, if you want. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not say I consider them insults. I said thy ARE insults and there cannot be a 2nd thought about it as it is obvious. If you continue insulting, attacking and negatively comenting the editors I'd suggest you to read more of the rules.
No, you do not have a single right to comment any of the users in such way and if you do it is even bad for you, as you shall not be considered somebody serious to make discussions with. If you wish to be perceived seriously you shall be considered as such by your value-creating actions and not insults. Aregakn (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a case of extreme falsification

Armenian crimes conducted during the Russia occupation of Eastern Turkey and the mass extermination of the local Muslim and Turkish population is not mentioned with a single word. Strange that people claiming to have been victims of genocide have colonies of 8 million Armenians around the world where according to their theories there should not be a singe Armenian left after 1915.Hittit (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually an article from The Nation suggests that when you add all the incidents you have 35 million Armenians killed. [4] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The total population of the Ottoman Empire in 1897 was 19,050,307 (History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2 By Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel K. Shaw pp.240). Armenians numbered just 1 million in 1987, in 1906 it stood at 1,1 million and in 1914 at 1,3 million. By this any suggestion or insinuation of the killing of 2 000 000 Armenians in Ottoman Turkey is not just a lie but shear impossibility. Not did only the population not decline but it in increased +30% in under 20 years. This would hardly be the effect of mass killings.

Assuming that 1,3 million were killed (virtually all exterminated in 1915) would make it impossible to have 8 million Armenians today, even if 500 000 were killed you could not have 8 million Armenians today since this would mean that the Armenian rate of population increase would surpass the population increase of any nation known today on the face of the earth.Hittit (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you have no idea of Armenian history, so don't talk. There were Armenians living in the RUSSIAN Empire, too -- part of historical Armenia at the time was under Russian rule. The first republic of Armenia had 800,000 Armenians, about 300,000 of whom were from the other side of the border. And yes, Armenian under the Soviet Union experienced a rapid population growth, as did the survivors in the rest of the Middle East. Some psychologists think that the trauma of the Genocide prompted them to reproduce to make up for their lost ones. Serouj (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you would like very much so if there was no talk or research on the issue. The sheer lunacy of these genocide claims requires rigorous investigation and provision of concrete evidence. You cannot build a genocide case based on “your word” or what your senile grand mother told or an alleged “traumatic” reproduction frenzy achieving an over 1000% population growth. Are you now saying that fragments of Armenians living in Russia were the main reproduction catapult to achieve the current figure of app. 8 million? How do you explain that 6 out 8 million Armenians live outside Russia and thus are the very descendants of Ottoman Armenians? achieving 6 million would be the normal population growth comparing to other former Ottoman colonies such as Bulgaria and Greece only if the base figure is 1,5 million (or higher) any less than this would suggest long term hormonal treatment to substantially increase Armenian female fertility and capability to bear children. Furthermore, not to mention that pictures of alleged Armenian refugees have also turned out to be actually fleeing Muslims, fabrication of documentation is also more the rule than the exception e.g.., virtually no validated Ottoman documentation (origins if any such later produced are in high doubt) of attempted and intended extermination. Having in mind that Ottoman Archives contains over 11 000 documents on the issue “genocide” researchers have not bother to make any examination of these. Armenian and Russia keep closed their own archives on the subject; most reports of allegations are based on Christian Missionaries highly operational in the area during WW1 or 3rd party accounts as these were in the same fashion instrumental for the propaganda war prior to the Turco-Russian War 1877-1878. Classic “weapons of mass-destruction” scenario paving the way of any major war. Not much has changed in terms of military propaganda since the 19th century.Hittit (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Serouj (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is all off-topic and should be removed. I will remove it unless I see valid objections. Meowy 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a discussion regarding the inaccuracy of this article thus in-topic. I will report you if you erase it as you're simply trying to censor this article according to your own beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. You and hittite are using this talk page as a platform for you to pursue your discredited agenda (an agenda that has been explored here and discredited here many times in the past) and to post OR and off-topic "Armenian crimes" comments. Talk pages are intended for discussion aimed at improving specific points in the article. They are not platforms for personal essays or personalised rants. This thread has no useful purpose in improving the article. Meowy 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That is laughable. You claim that their claim is personal agenda and they try to push it here, yet they can prove that some documents used in this article are forgeries. Whats up with that? And stop feeding the trolls? What's that? Avoiding a discussion because it becomes to hard to handle? --90.29.127.95 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
We are not using any kind of agenda and it haven't been discredited. I'm pointing out factual errors in this article. The article even uses documents that are proven to be forgeries. If that's your sense of credibility, accuracy and informing then it's actually you who is trying to push his agenda and I need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only did the Armenian population increase in Ottoman Turkey between 1887 and 1914 with 30% but some Turkish born Armenians such Calouste Gulbenkian made an immense fortune ripping-off the Ottoman Government in the very years Armenians are claimed to have been mass killed.Hittit (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Calouste Gulbenkian got his 5 per cent from the consortium of European Oil Companies and not from the Turkish government (and for good reason, he earned it). Claiming that he ripped-off the Ottoman government is wishful thinking. Nobody is "claiming" that there were mass killings. The mass killings happened and are well documented by far more scholars than claim or allege otherwise. Turkey's mass killings of Christians were not isolated to the First World War either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Armenian Casulties

Another factual error in this article is that the article claims without citation that the Turkish state claims that the casualties were around 300 thousand which is once again wrong. The Turkish state claims that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians have died. [5] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

American Recognition

I heard on the news that the United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as an actual genocide, causing Turkey to remove their ambassador. It was never repeated. Is it actually true that the United States recognized the genocide and is it worth mentioning on the article? 71.129.63.227 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The cross-party U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs has just approved a resolution that calls the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I a genocide, and has recommended that the resolution be passed by the entire House of Congress. Given that President Obama before his election called the Armenian Genocide a genocide, and given that he seems to be resorting to playing the do-the-right-thing moral-high-ground card for certain other legislation, it is politically difficult for him to oppose this resolution - so it has a better than normal chance of passing. That is the reason for the recent flood of propagandistic postings onto this talk page. Just as the propaganda has no place on this talk page, I think mention of the resolution has doubtful place in the article. This already overly-long and all-but-unusable article is about the Armenian Genocide, not about resolutions that commemorate it. It should have a mention in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide though - the only reason the resolution is notable (and the main reason it exists at all) is because of Turkish opposition to it and the word genocide. Meowy 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Meowy, please keep your own propaganda and lies to yourself. It's completely pathetic of you to call us propagandists. Just show how butt-hurt you get when confronted by your own lies. Please refrain yourself from acting so pathetic in the future. On the bill issue, Obama issued a statement for the House not to accept it. It's not the first time that it was accepted, I think. It simply has zero meaning as it doesn't mean a bit that the United States have accepted the genocide claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
What happened is that a US Congressional panel ruled that it was a genocide. In reaction, the Turkish government, "recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and says it is considering other responses."[6] The White House, however, has vowed to prevent the issue being the subject of a full Congressional vote.[7] Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting study

I am not interested in the details here, but given what the news says, I wonder what the Turkish Wikipedia version of this page is like. I wonder how it differs from the English (and if there is an Armenian) version. I don't read Turkish and can not be bothered to run the page through Google translate, but if someone with high emotions (say like 4,000 people out there) would like to translate that and comment on the differences it wll make an interesting study in "cross cultural Wikipedia" and may be the beginning of a new field. Another example would be to compare the Japanese and Korean versions of specific periods in history. Then Wikipages will begin to make history by starting a new field. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish page is more neutral on the subject as it doesn't take any side. It simply shows the views of the different sides and gives sources from both sides without reaching a conclusion as it should be. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what neutral means these days, but the Turkish version does seem to use the term genocide as well. However, looking across French, German, Spanish and Italian versions will also make an interesting comparison. The German version does not include "a single photo" of a person, dead or alive, and just uses maps. It does, however discuss details. The Spanish version, on the other hand starts with dramatic photos of dying children, and its content is similar to the French, English and Italian versions. The Russian version has only one photo, and seems brief - but I do not read Russian. By the way, the Turkish version reproduces the July 16 Telegram twice. I am not sure why it needs it twice. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, to me an article is not neutral if it uses forged evidence as if they were real to support an argument, as in this English version. The amount of content on the articles depends on how many Armenians involved in editing. As you can see from the English version it's dominated by Armenians and they hardly let any edit that go against their own arguments. The question is should Wikipedia really take a side in such articles and not care to ignore or twist the other side of the argument? We can of course not expect every version article to be identical to each other. I'm not sure what you mean by the Russian version but it has multiple pictures with a not that short of an article. Check it here: [8] The reproduction of the telegram picture is most likely to be due to different people editing. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You should do that analysis on the Jewish Holocaust before attempting to do it on the Armenian Genocide. I just would like to see how far you get with it. We appear to be forever pussyfooting around the sensibilities of Germans and Turks. Why do the victims have to pussyfoot? btw I am not Armenian but my entire family has been persecuted by Germans and Turks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have an entire book collection that says otherwise and all from independent sources. Judging by the number of denialists I am going to need it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Denialists? The correct term is exposing the truth, this so called genocide is nothing more than the Weapons of Mass Destruction for which the evidence was presented in the UN and used as a pretext to attack Iraq. I bet in 20 years time when an American shoolchild is asked why did the US attack Iraq the answer would be because Iraq had WMD and was going to use them. Here we are almoust 100 years after the Allied attack agains Turkey during the WWI and we are still debating war propaganda.Hittit (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, I would recommend you to check your sources again. Most of the studies are based on other Armenian scholars. So one study by an Armenian is usually multiplied without any addition or original research by many Armenian or "Western" historians. On the other hand if you actually check non-Turkish historians who have an expertise on some aspect of the Ottoman history the result you get is much different. As there are no real evidence, the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI like the Blue Book or documents that have been proven to be forgeries like The Memoirs of Naim Bey as evidence which I'm sure your books also have them as divine truth when they're nothing but garbage. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No Armenian scholars in my collection. Just foreign nationals. However, the Blue Book is a bonafide source that's the real deal. If you read what I have added about the Blue Book you will find out why. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Where did you added about the Blue Book?
The Blue Book is a well accepted propaganda work of disinformation. It is even labeled as "a disinformation book favoring the Allied states and aiming at shaping the public opinion, which does not go beyond the obsessive task of humiliating the Turks." by William Hardy McNeill who wrote the biography of Arnold J. Toynbee, author of the Blue Book. The Blue Book was not even regarded as a evidence in Malta Tribunals. I don't understand how some people still utilize such false documents as proof. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
TheDarkLordSeth, this is a second note of you insulting other editors and now on national bases: "I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)". Please pay attention! Aregakn (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So calling someone a Greek is an insult? The only insult here is the one you just made by labeling the word Greek as an insult. Get real! TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Your word-play has no sense. You clearly called Greeks and some other nations, you had in your mind, liars, as, in your words, they have no proofs, and that they are "pussyfooting" and victimising themselves baselessly. I'll let you know, that this kind of nationalistic and racist behavior is not tolerated in Wikipedia so restrain yourself from such comments and insults on whole nations. Aregakn (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I only made an assumption. It's actually you who identify it with an insult. It's a rather pathetic attempt. As I see from you and others here Wiki allows everything these days. Please refrain from making such foul comments in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you made either an assumption and/or a comment (a negative one) and that very comment is based on national belonging, and this puts you where I told already. Keep in mind, that ethnic or racial comments or assumptions are and will not be tolerated. And then your other comments in the last message have no value-adding, as quite often. Aregakn (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Your attempt to label what I said as an insult is simply pathetic. No discussion needed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to lable it. If you remember the message was "noting", you may read it again to see that I noted it. Thus I "invited" your attention to the issue. What you do afterwards is not my concern and you decide on your own. Aregakn (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[tabbing over to the left to save space] Back to the historical point of the Blue Book. The Republic of Turkey recently asked the British government to renounce the Blue Book. Unfortunately for Turkey the British government not only denied the request the government firmly stood by the Blue Book as accurate historical testimony. If anyone has anything to say against the Blue Book I would like to hear from you here. Referenced sources only from independent sources only (no Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian or Greek sources). There are numerous Turkish scholars/sources that attempt to discredit the Blue Book by claiming that the testimony was falsified. Their reasoning is that the names of the eye-witness testimonies were with held, because they were still living in the Ottoman Empire and they feared reprisals, however, their names were published independently shortly after the Blue Book was published. More recently an uncensored edition has been published that has integrated the original Blue Book with the names of the eye-witnesses, but it is the identical/same testimony and witnesses that were published shortly after the original events. btw what did you people do to the three paragraph section about the "Blue Book" in this article about the Armenian Genocide? It has completely disappeared. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You may find this book useful: [9].
It addresses a lot of documents utilized by genocide claimers as well as the blue book. Apparently Blue Book is only based on personal accounts. Even if all of them are true it doesn't go beyond the point of proving anarchy in the region. Does Blue Book suggests with proofs that Ottoman government ordered the killings? Can you please give links to specific examples if the book is available online?
Also when you say independent sources do you mean the articles itself or the place they're published? For example the ATAA website has many articles and documents by foreign scholars or resources.
Certain edits are deleted by IP users. I got some of mine deleted too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You haven't read the Uncensored Blue Book. There is clear testimony that proves without any doubt the systematic genocidal intentions of the government of the Ottoman Empire including Sivas, Marsovan, and Angora. The whole reason that the Blue Book was published was to provide full-proof evidence of what happened. I am sure that you are more than capable of looking up an electronic copy. I don't need to. I have a hardcopy. What is really interesting is that the Ottoman Turkish government wasn't bothered about how loyal their Armenian-Turkish subjects were. It didn't make any difference at all. The Armenians in Angora were mostly Roman Catholic Christians and they were very loyal citizens of the Ottoman Empire (as testified many local Turkish officials). The Ottoman Turkish government treated them the same way as they treated the vast majority of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. And the detail in the testimony is comprehensive. Even the details in how they were killed. In one case, the Turks "practised economy" i.e. they didn't waste bullets, on the deported Armenians. Instead they used axes and daggers. The Turks that carried out the deed openly boasted about their achievements (see page 401 of the Uncensored Blue Book). Also, p. 403 of the Blue Book. The tanners and the butchers were called to Asi Yozgad by Turkish officials. The butchers used their small butchers' axes and the tanners used their circular knives on the Armenians as ordered by the Turkish officials. And these Turkish officials were sent from Constantinople (later called Istanbul) because the local Turkish officials refused to do the deed. The local Turkish officials could not do it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_5&oldid=1079510359"