Talk:Armenian Genocide

New section for presenting the Turkish point of view, or link to such an article

There should be a section for conveying the Turkish point of view, or perhaps a link to such an article? Nowhere in this article can an opposing Turkish current point of view be read.

According to an opposing theoretical point of view, this entire article is biased in the opposite direction. This article is designed with references that push the content in a specific intended direction, where in this article can 'facts', content, statements and references be found that OPPOSE an accusation of such a topic? This article is seemingly shaped to DEFEND this topic from being disputed?

If you really are absolutely neutral, you will give room or give opportunity for the Opposing view to be presented.

An 'opposing view' is not something that can be disputed. Also, an opposing view does not require neutrality, it is a perspective. If you consider this article neutral, fine, but still you should have the insight to understand that an opposing current Turkish view to the events of 1915, even though incorrect according to you, is still a point of view that is TRUTH in that it DOES represent A point of view, but necessarily not the actual events.

There are 2 sides in the points of view, yet any rational explanation(s) that present an opposing view is omitted in this article. There may be, for instance, people who do not deny that many died but what is different is: 1) sequence of events, without omitting the big WHY for leaders to take dramatical decisions. (COMPLETELY OMITTED IN CURRENT ARTICLE) Or even more importantly adding more detail to the sequence of events that were the basis for reasoning behind the actions. Also with initial goals and intention behind them by leaders.

2) Same happenings but with view from the other perspective.

Millions and millions of Turks have different points of view to the events If you think Turks are people who go around 'knowing' silently [i] your [/i] truth but still don't say anything because they are ashamed? then you are wrong. 'they', Turks DO base their stance on the topic, on KNOWLEDGE. However incorrect that knowledge be according to you, still it is contradicting enough to not even considering calling the events a Purposeful killing of innocent humans. This perspective, this knowledge is not represented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.0.30 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The section you are requesting already exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Republic_of_Turkey_and_the_Genocide). Please note that for wikipedia article, we cannot use anecdotal information, or original research, and rely solely on notable content provided by reputable sources. That mean that neither pro- or anti- turkish blogs should be used, etc. There may very well be institutional bias in the sense that the majority of english sources feel it was a genocide and that Turkey is deep, deep in denial over it. However, our job here at wiki is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN to discern "truth". We only deal in verifiability. If the majority of sources feel one way, that's what we reflect. Other opinions are certainly open to inclusion, but must be given due weight. Just because there are two opinions on the genocide does not mean they should be given equal time and weight in the article. If one is (as it is) a vastly minority view, it should be treated as such, especially outside of reputable sources stating anything to the contrary.204.65.34.246 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You or anyone won't mind people filling in more details of the Turkish point of view then? Several important things are skipped, such as 'a threat of war with russia', and according to many 'DELUSIONAL' Turks somehow thinking that 'armenians were being mobilized by russians' ? so they had to 'get them out of the battlefield'. Is it allowed to write about these delusions that the Turks seemed to have at the time?

85.96.130.138 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) "We only deal in verifiability. If the majority of sources feel one way, that's what we reflect." Then why pretend the Ottoman archives that state Armenians were relocated? Why pretend that planning for such a big massacre has never been found in the archives? How can one prove that something that "did not happen" actually "did not happen"? Could someone in this forum prove me otherwise if I say "all ducks were killed by Armenians in the western region of Iran during 1899" and come up with verifiable resources??? When it comes to so called genocide, Wikipedia is not fair. There is just too much pressure coming from Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.237.47 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Then why pretend?" The Turkish Archives are full of information that confirms the systematic and organised religious cleansing of Asia Minor. And there are numerous scholars that confirm this in great detail. The question should be "Why deny that it never happened?". If you really want to include the Turkish point of view on this subject it should be placed in a new article with the title: "The Republic of Turkey's Ongoing Denial of the Christian Holocaust" and it should not be limited to the genocide of Armenians although many more Armenians suffered. Fabricating stories of why the genocide did not happen does not correlate with what is in the Turkish Archives.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can start with searching 'Armenian Genocide' in google scholar ( scholar.google.com ) The whole academicians in the world agree that armenian genocide took place. There are only very few exceptions, whose so called research is funded by the turkish government. Wikipedia is a scientific community. If every opinion for every subject is going to appear on wikipedia I can not imagine how it will look like. For example under the subject of Newtons Law I would write that newton had a fourht law in fact which suggest that if you kiss a frog it will turn to a prince. I would also justify this with telling that this is mine and 30 friends of mine opinion.Ali55te (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"The whole academicians in the world agree that armenian genocide took place". Are you kidding? The western/Christian world is not the WHOLE world. And Wikipedia is not a scientific community. Don't exaggerate. Only in topics where politics, religion or history are not involved, we can see a real scientific behaviour. Armenian "genocide" is an example where Wikipedia fails to fulfil it's goals. Completely hijacked by partisans. Chonanh (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You should look for the meaning of both "scientific" and "partisan". You will discover that here you are the only one not following a scientific method, and the only partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.231.85.162 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Music Update

We need to include "Yes, It's Genocide" by Serj Tankian under Music, it also about this tragedy. Serj is Armenian, and the song is completely in Armenian as well. Sicarius001 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article should clarify (at least once) that Constantinople is modern day Istanbul

Many readers may not even be aware that it is the same physical place. The point is to situate the reader geographically. Thus, I believe this could achieved by replacing "Constantinople" by "Constantinople (modern day Istanbul)" in the first mention without any lose of Historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryseriousperson (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

non partisan

but this link striked me as bias and unscholarly

^ "The Jihad Rampant in Persia" by Rev. Robert M. Labree--reporting from Tabriz, Persia July 1915:

" The Christians were the most prosperous people of the community; so their houses were well furnished with all the comforts of an Eastern home, and their stables were filled with the best of cattle. They were naturally envied by their poorer Moslem neighbors, who welcomed the popular doctrine that in the time of a "jihad" the property as well as the lives of Christians is lawful prey to Mohammedan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 20 December2011

in the second paragraph of the "Republic of Turkey and the Genocide" section:

He also states that, "I think that, the Armenian issue can be solved by politicans and not by historians..."

politicans should be politicians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.255.141.210 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Y Done

A new documentary

I've come across this documentary about Armenian Genocide (I didn't watch it yet) Could someone please add it to the list of documentaries?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936460/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yufufi (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

ASALA (wikipedia page) was an important figure in 80s and seems to be directly relevant to the topic. Why not mention in section "Armenia and the Genocide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.153.59 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Extermination camps section

Per this edit[1], the entire paragraph is referenced by the source at the end of the paragraph. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths unclear

The box on the right-hand side of the page claims: "Deaths: 600,000 - 1,500,000"

Meanwhile, the opening paragraph specifies a narrower range: "deaths ... between 1 million and 1.5"

I believe all instances in the article should reflect the same range of numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.205.155 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IDK why there is such a debate about this, it happened so why are we arguing about it?

See above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.241 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)