Talk:Armenia–Turkey relations

Proof Needed

Look I know that emotions run high on both sides, but let's not forget that we have to back things up... PLS Baristarim 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that with regards to a comment about the architect Mimar Sinan, not concerning the genocide, I know that there are enough people discussing that in the concerned page :)) Baristarim 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

During Ottoman rule

Have a look at the changes I made and tell me what you think... I have tried to enrich the article.. I made many grammatical corrections, expanded the explanation of certain details and ALSO tried to calm certain things down. I HAVE NOT however tried to change the essence of the article to the best of my abilities, including some, let's say 'thorny' issues.

On the other hand, I see this article as an opportunity to not always see the glass as half-empty.. Pls reply and let me know of what you think...

And don't revert directly if you want to change something I wrote!!! I have made grammatical corrections at the same time, so pls look carefully at what you want to change. Peace people!!! Baristarim 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mimar Sinan

Hey Baristarim, thanks for the help and nice editing. About Mimar Sinan, it is arguable but the fact that he came from an armenian populated village and was a christian really narrows it down. It is said he used to go by the name Minan Armen Sinanian (Armen being an armenian name). Other people say that there is a possibility he was greek too. That's why we should just leave it a disputed claim. Fedayee 11:26, 2 September 2006 (Montreal Time) (UTC)

In Turkish, Mimar means architect.. Mimar Sinan means Architect Sinan. Because Sinan is architect. You say me that "Minan Armen" comes together and turns into "Mimar" which means architech. I congurulate you. you made up it youself? good imagination. I am tired of discussing with armenians, really!!.. They only know how to make propoganda and insult us.. In Turkey, I know some armenian People and they are perfect. but here in wikipedia, they make me crayz..

Ok, no problems.. I am cool with that.. Even in Turkey there have been such claims I believe. As long as it is cited it's alright.. Baristarim 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I know that this might be a bit of a stretch :), but does anyone have any info or sources on the Armenian-Turkish relations other than politics, such as cultural activities, concerts etc. in Turkey, Armenia or somewhere else? If you do let's put them in the text.. Baristarim 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For Armenians, everyone who was famous in Anatolia was Armenian. They dont care the reality, they just claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Diplomatic relations

I have read again and again over the past 24 hours that "the countries have no diplomatic relations". I am tired of reading something that, while true, does not explain at all why and I have fixed it in this article at least. There are no diplomatic relations because Turkey refuses to have them. Period. At the time of independence, poor little Armenia was starving to death and never made any land claims on Turkey. Turkey insisted that Armenia revoke their land claims before establishing relations. Sounds like paranoia to me. Then they changed the demand to withdrawing from Karabakh (yes, the same country that has invaded and remained in Cyprus for 30 years!). They also have warned Armenia not to push the genocide recognition internationally. Armenia has again and again and again replied to Turkey that they want diplomatic relations and an open border, without preconditions. That they should have relations with their neighbor and work out issues simultaneously. This is what happened, this is how it was, and this is the whole story. This is what the article needs to reflect because there is a black and white in this case and this is it. --RaffiKojian 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Raffi thanks for clearing that up. Can you just confirm that Armenia has made no claims for land in Turkey since independence, it does not have it in it's constitution and give us a link please?

What is the economic state of Armenia? I thought they were getting a lot of economic support from Russia and the Armenian diaspora? If you could give us a few links that would be great.

That is correct, Armenia has never made a claim of land on Turkey since independence. How can I give a reference to that when it never happened? You can certainly read the constitution which was adopted in 1995 and is available on a few sites[1] and see it is not there for example. Armenia gets economic investment and military support from Russia, and a great deal of remittances and aid from the Armenian Diaspora - though the significance of that to this article is not too clear to me. --RaffiKojian 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ASALA

Listen, is there any logical rationale for excluding the Asala link from the see also of the main article about the TR-AM relations? If the title of the link was the problem, pls remove that - not the see also. It is really not cool you know: ASALA is an integral part of the TR-AM relations in the 70s and 80s, right? So, why remove it? Does anyone have a valid explanation? Baristarim 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ASALA has a place in an article about TR-AM relations. Perhaps a better method of including it would be a paragraph about the ASALA assassinations, strictly NPOV. If this does not have a place in this article, then this article should clearly state that it is about Republic of Turkey and Republic of Armenia and should also then refrain from "Turkish-Armenian" issues that don't fit into that rather narrow category - IMO, that would be rather silly. BTW, I don't think ASALA should be mentioned without mentioning Artin Penik. --Free smyrnan 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish website should not be included. I could compromise on adding the ASALA article in hte see also, but not the website. ROOB323 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the link was kind of dodgy... However, good point by Smyrnan about if we should keep the article at "Armenian-Turkish" or at "Armenia-Turkey". It is an interesting look at the issue. Doesn't mean any content will be changed though, but for stylistic purposes it might be better. That way, we can organize some of the stuff under a history section and try to develop other facets of information. Just a thought. Baristarim 08:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why trying to define all of Armenians as innocent victims in the past as far as the Armenian-Turkish Relations concerned. As if Asala have not done anything, just an ordinary peaceful organisation... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiasb (talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree on the website not being included. See also, or better, a paragraph about ASALA should be sufficient. --Free smyrnan 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The strange thing is that, on all the pages about Turkey vs. Armenia, each and every page protection measures in this "Free Encyclopedia" have been taken on behalf of the Armenians' claims, disregarding all the rest of other editings, WHAT A COINCIENCE!!!Tiasb

OK then, how about this link, its from ASALA's own site http://www.armenians.com/asala/index1.html

No, there is no need for an external link to ASALA information in this article. If you feel that this link and others like it provide information about ASALA, please provide it in the ASALA article. This article however, needs a reference to ASALA. I think that given the impact this has had on how Turks view Armenians, it warrants an NPOV paragraph. Also, please sign with 4~. --Free smyrnan 11:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please pay attention to ROOB323 wording:

"The Turkish website should not be included. I could compromise on adding the ASALAarticle in hte see also, but not the website." what an authority, ownwer of the domain!!!!

Who wrote the above comment about my wording? If you are able to talk shit about me than you should also mention who the hell you are, so I can know which idiot wrote the above comment about me and warn that idiot to watch their mouths. ROOB323 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy guys :) This article still needs a lot of expansion and some re-organization. Keep your energies for when those come around... Baristarim 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some idiot using socks, *rolls eyes* [2] Nareklm 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users aside, do we have consensus that ASALA goes in the See-Also? --Free smyrnan 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No it should not stay end of story, theres no info on the site. Nareklm 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, why not? The whole article needs to be expanded in any case. I honestly don't get it. ASALA was (and in some cases psychologically still) a very important factor in defining TR-AM relations in the 70s and 80s. It is just a see also you know, people can make up their own minds. In cases such as these it is always better to develop the main articles anyways, that's what really matters. Baristarim 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean, please elaborate since I did not understand. I am referring to including a link to ASALA article in WP in the See-Also, as per ROOB323. --Free smyrnan 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Smyrnan. I was talking about the see also. ELs are always complicated things to take care of anyways. To avoid such problems per WP:EL, the best thing is to expand the articles so that we don't need any external links to begin with. Baristarim 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The see also is ok but not the link. Nareklm 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have consensus then. See-Also gets ASALA reference to WP article. Who does the honors since the page is protected? --Free smyrnan 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please do what is necessary on this particular item that has reached consensus? I don't know how this process works. --Free smyrnan 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to ask an administarator to remove the block. ROOB323 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for unprotection. Baristarim 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed this whole conversation, but would like to add my 2 cents at this time. ASALA is crucial to this article, so I am glad to see it is in the article. I do think though that the ASALA section, and discussions have been a bit misguided. The attacks began in a perhaps unprecedented way, and were done at a time when, it could even be said that certain terrorist movements had somewhat widespread sympathy, if not support. It was a very different time. It was - for the Armenian Diaspora - the only time they ever heard Armenia(ns) mentioned in the news for 15 years. A strange circumstance. It was also somewhat different than most terrorist groups of the time, and especially today, in that targets were almost always Turkish officials, not civilians. There were notable exceptions, which were causes/results of splinter groups of ASALA. For Turkey, it was, along with Cyprus and Midnight Express, less than a positive association for the country. I do not however think that external links need to be added in this section, unless they are solid references, and I think Artin Penik needs to remain in the ASALA article, not here. --RaffiKojian 15:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Title

What about the title? Should we move it to Armenia-Turkey? The content will stay the same, so that's not a problem. I just think it looks better and consistent with other similar "X-Y" relations articles. Baristarim 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The name is fine, why should we change it? so we can fill it up with Anti-Armenian crap? Nareklm 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

? Er, no. It is because "X-Y" relations articles are always titled as such. Assume good faith man, no need to look for ulterior motives just because a Turkish editor suggested it :) I was making a good faith suggestion. I fail to see how it can be filled with "anti-Armenian crap" just because of a stylistic name change... Baristarim 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly i don't care if your Turkish since im not anti anything, unless people start acting up, the name looks fine. Nareklm 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be mostly about Armenian-Turkish relations rather than RoA-RoT relations. Let's keep the title and see where the article expands to. If there is a move towards limiting the scope of the article to RoA-RoT, then it should be renamed. Current edits are not towards that limitation of scope. --Free smyrnan 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. But know that per other precedents such a name change wouldn't modify or limit the scope of this article. I am just saying that per the templates present in the article of country foreign relations, it looks like that anyways. Such articles always include history, diaspora, trade, culture etc information in any case. That's why I said that such a name change wouldn't modify any content. I still don't see any valid arguments, all other relations articles are titled as such, and it looks much more encyclopedic like that. Narek, if people are going to act up it is not going to be dependent on the title, right?

I try to organize many articles, so that's why I thought that a title change would be good - it is not for a particular reason frankly... But it's ok, let's move on to something else. Baristarim 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Baristarim. I also agree with Narek I think we should leave the title alone. The name of the title is fine as it is, unless there is a really good reason to change it to something else, but for now I don't think there is any reason to change it. ROOB323 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a thought :) Baristarim 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kars treaty

Kars treaty is there an Armenian document (government) that declares the borders between these states are recognized? What would be the legality issues regarding the Armenian constitution calling for Genocide? --OttomanReference 03:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean genocide recognition!!! Also, I don't think countries as a matter of policy declare recognition of previous/ratified treaties signed by previous governments/regimes. --RaffiKojian 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Armenia does recognize the Treaty of Kars. This was reaffirmed by Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian on December 13, 2006. As a legal successor to the Armenian SSR, Armenia has not made an issue of the treaty. According to Oskanian, Turkey puts the Kars treaty into doubt by blockading Armenia and severing diplomatic ties with Armenia. The treaty called for Turkey to open a consulate in each of the three Transcaucasian republics. [3] -- Aivazovsky 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So called threat

There is no Turkish military troops in the Turkish side of the border with Armenia but gendermarie. Turkey does not see Armenia as a threat and there is not a single Turkish political / military threat briefing against Armenia, not a single sentence, even a word.

Mr. Koçaryan's ideas are his own thoughts and can not be in a Turkish-Armenian relationship topic in Wikipedia. It is an political and one-sided issue. As Turks do not write here their own ideas about Armenia (invading Azerbaijan, genocide in Hojali against Muslims, wanting Ararat from Turkey etc.) Koçaryan's ideas are also must be removed.

You may write them down into the topic about Koçaryan and his life, but not here.

I'll remove them from the article in 3 days if I dont get an answer. Thank you.--hnnvansier 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of country is Armenia, if its president can not be trusted??? If Koçaryan does not reflect the policies of this country, who reflects the "Armenian governments" view? Should we check for the Armenian Diaspora instead? Is the source cited? (YES) Is the source recent? (YES). User:Lardayn if you claim Armenians and Turks are in good position, brought your citations. However I personally know Armenians HATE Turks and see them as a threat. I have seen an Armenian getting in fight with a Turkish student at a restaurant about nationalistic issues. No surprise that boarder between these two nation is closed. --OttomanReference 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not make Turkey as a "threat" But that is Armenian hate against Turkey. If Turkey officially does not have any intend neither on invading nor attacking Armenia, and there is no evidence of a possible operation against Armenia and in addition to those you can see clearly that the border is clear from Turkish troops, that means, Turkey is not a threat to Armenia. Turkey does not care about Armenia in a military way. So, Koçaryan must be too blind to see that, or that is just an Armenian internal propaganda to keep 2,5 millions of Armenians in the state under his aggressive rule. You know, threat brings obedience. If you say "we are under attack" people would feel nervous and stay at your side because of their nationalist blood.

Thats why I say again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda sheet.

3 days left. Thank you.--hnnvansier 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

IT is your POV (Point of View) against the Armenian president POV. Right at this moment, if you are not Turkish president, the Armenian President dominates. Do you have any source claim no hostility between these two states? A country perceives a threat to close its boarders. May be you are not on to things as Turkish Government is. Is it also possible that you are not aware of the seriousness as much as a President of the Armenia? Could this be possible? Bring "your sources" first, I say again, Wikipedia is not a your propaganda sheet. --OttomanReference 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment like "if you are not Turkish president, the Armenian President dominates." seems like a pissing contest, please do not do that. deniz^T_C 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First before I bring my sources, the one who "claims" need sources. Koçaryan's words are not sources, there is no evidence, no source of threat. This is the very basic rule of the law. Koçaryan's POV is Koçaryan's POV and POVs are not "sources".--hnnvansier 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to disagree with "A country perceives a threat to close its boarders". The only closed Turkish border is the one with Armenia, but I am sure that Armenia is not that much of a threat compared to the other neighbors of Turkey. The decision to close the borders is an economic and political decision mostly related to Nagorno Karabakh, it's (like) a sanction. The words of a president are notable, so they should be included when relevant, but they are opinions so they should be presented as such. If there are other opinions, they should also be presented. If Turkey wanted to take some military action against Armenia, it could very well do that during the Nagorno-Karabakh war, no better 'opportunity' will arise easily. deniz^T_C 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kocharyan's words are one-sided and they are only the Armenian view. No international acceptance and lack evidence. Thats why Im removing them. For the threat topic may be in the main article, there must be an evidence, a direct threat from Turkey, or a Turkish general's, President's etc words against Armenia. Turkey doesnt be a threat when a political leader says she is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Lardayn, I think we should rather state that there are no major army divisions near the Armenian border. Also a list of threats published by the Turkish security council might be useful. As far as I know, Islamism and PKK were seen as the top threats, I don't know about others atm. deniz^T_C 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Islamism but radical Islamism. And PKK. There is no topic on Armenia by Turkish Security Council. But if there is a threat, it was from Armenia who supported PKK and had ASALA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

POV-check

I am putting a POV-check tag, because of the intro - it is too short, as such it is way too POVish - it needs to be expanded to make it more encyclopedic. Generally intros should be two/three paragraphs - one sentence intro really doesn't sit right. So if someone could come in and check it for NPOV-ing, that would be nice :) Baristarim 07:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a follow-up note: I don't want to get into a grueling debate on the contents of the article, the tag that I had put was only for the intro for the time being. The intro should be at least two-three paragraphs and summarize the article. In its current state, because it is only one sentence, it looks odd to say the least - as far as I am concerned for the moment, when the intro is expanded, just remove the tag. Cheers! Baristarim 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's all that I wanted :) Baristarim 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yezidis

I completely removed the Yezidi reference, which has nothing to do with Armenian-Turkish anything, and was wrong to boot. Yezidis are a Kurdish minority, whose religion is not Islam, but their own unique religion. What does this have to do with Armenian Turkish relations? The statement also said they are "diminishing", while all the reference said was that they had a very low rate of school attendance... two completely different things. Anyway, if someone wants to add them to this article, let them explain convincingly that there is any justification for their inclusion. --RaffiKojian 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ARMENIAN TERRORISM

Im removing subheading made by Makalp on "Armenian Terror" it cites POV sources, innacurate, and consititutes original research. Hetoum 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the texts referenced by armenialiberty, armeniapedia, aina, cilicia.com, armeniandiaspora.com, armenica.org, armenianreporter (via highbeam), norharevanner.am as well deniz^T_C 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are pretty basic, no one disputes Sinans Christian origin and quotes from Armenian foreign FM in armenian news. Zaman and Turkish daily are in there too, so I think it is ok to have some, as these Armenian/Turkish sources. Hetoum 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, maybe we should put tags next to the disputed ones, then. At least cilicia.com should go, if for nothing else, for the fact that the text there is, I believe, copyrighted, I am not sure cilicia.com has the right to publish it. If someone has that article, just write what is written there, and the reference should be the article itself, not some copy. Also, aina reference can be replaced by the actual article from new anatolian. Please let's not have copies of some articles as references, we should find and refer to the original ones. deniz^T_C 04:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

hmm... I am a little confused, but ok. On direct articles I agree. But, which are references from Cilica ? I could not find em, were they already removed? (Hetoum 21:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

#19, case study in ethnic strife deniz^T_C 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think its best to ask User: RaffiKojian who maintains this and Armenianpedia. As far as I know he is pretty sharp on his stuff. Hetoum 08:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed border/ border claims

Unless someone can provide a shred of evidence that there is a direct correlation between having an open border and a neighboring country claiming/taking land from you, I am going to remove the multiple references which make just that ridiculous assertion. Turkey has refused even to establish even diplomatic relations, does that somehow prevent Armenia from annexing all of Anatolia as well? --RaffiKojian 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "multiple references" you're referring to, but I believe among them would have to be: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, for instance, a considerable political force within Armenia, persists in claiming parts of modern Turkey as Armenian historical rights; thus, any radical territorial claims can be isolated by the closure of the border.

Maybe the problem is that the point made in the article is made unclearly, or awkwardly. Perhaps the inclusion of a passing reference to Turkey-PKK conflict circa 1992 would be helpful. To keep the Armenian-Turkish relations section complete, we must make a point about Turkish territorial anxieties, some of which were driven by Kurdish separatist ambitions, in addition to the "climate of irredentism" and Armenian statehood and political empowerment. It would seem inevitable that the Turkish state would be wary of any freely-operating political organization in Armenia making territorial claims, when Turkey was already involved in a brutal conflict with PKK separatists. These groups would make for natural allies, and shutting down any tense border would be pragmatic on that basis alone. So it shouldn't read like Turkey feared "annexation" by Armenia, rather like Turkey feared militant activity or basing for the PKK.

I'd like a brief touching on this, to contextualize the border closing. I think it is absolutely necessary to keep mention of this Turkish territorial anxiety in the article, though I think you're right that this sentence needs to not correlate border-territorial loss quite so overtly. Human Rights Watch gives us the following:

In 1991, an Anti-Terror Law was instituted to punish so-called "separatist propaganda," resulting in the repression of peaceful free expression-especially concerning debate on the Kurdish issue-and the imprisonment of writers and intellectuals. By 1992, the conflict in the southeast entered a new spiral. Torture and deaths in detention increased, as did disappearances under mysterious circumstances. A wave of so called "actor unknown murders" targeted a Kurdish nationalist intellectuals and journalists and also suspected PKK members, rising to almost 1,200 between 1992 and 1994. A Turkish parliamentary commission investigation into these killings, leaked to the press in 1995, concluded that "`illegal formations' within the state bear some responsibility for mystery killings; they must be `cleansed'...and brought to justice." In turn the PKK assassinated those suspected of cooperating with the state, such as teachers, civil servants, and former PKK members. The government intensified a counterinsurgency campaign against the PKK, forcibly evacuating and burning rural villages. Most of the estimated 2,200 villages and hamlets depopulated in the region since 1984 are the result of this campaign. The PKK in turn launched attacks against both security forces and villages that had joined the government civil-defense "village guard" program, killing village guards and their families alike.[4]

Cheers, DBaba 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To our lobbyist at 151.37.183.75 and 151.37.181.12

You know, if you could calm down a little bit, you could really contribute to that article, and many others. But really, while your perspective is helpful, your edits are ridiculous. Why waste your time pretending that the Armenian Genocide is merely an Armenian claim, when you clearly have the English to know better? The world was there; the world knows; you can't edit it away. As pretty as your English is, your behavior is a bit creepy. But go get an account and come back, because we can still work together if you take a deep breath before you type.

I was just thinking I needed to do more work on that ASALA section. It's obviously a big deal to a lot of Turkish citizens, though it hardly made the news in the West, and I'm fairly certain most Armenians of the Diaspora have never even heard of the group. From my vantage point, it looks more like a Lebanese or Cold War phenomenon than an Armenian phenomenon (I'm totally hung up on the parallel of Cuba vs Turkey as Cold War pawns, as per the resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis). What do you think? And how do you think we should frame it, the 40-odd deaths relative to the hundreds of thousands? Remembering those evil killings of Turkish citizens is essential; but the million Armenian dead, they too warrant mention, naturally.

What's the right way to work with that subject, and what are the defining events of that era of revenge killings? JCAG and whatever else? I'll do the work for you if you can furnish me with an intelligent answer. Challenge me! Cheers, DBaba 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DBaba but banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.VartanM 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is it? And how do you know, I've never understood how these "bans" work! DBaba 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He would be the User:Shuppiluliuma /User:Flavius_Belisarius. He is indef banned by the community for edit warring and sockpuppetry. He did a pretty good job on Foreign relations of Turkey, its too bad we have to revert his edits. If only he could have calmed down when he was given a second chance. VartanM 01:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How funny! I think I've complimented his English in the past, while trying to turn him from the dark side. Boy he sure does seem to think that he can nullify the Armenian Genocide by contending that a million unarmed dead Christians deserved it. It's a scary morality, it makes one thankful one's not a Kurd in Northern Iraq... I think Flavor Flav said he'd just completed a stint in the Turkish military too; think about that... DBaba 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped, or at least left the Armenian articles alone. Which is a good enough reason for me not to look for him. His actually a pretty good editor when it comes to non "controversial" articles.

Thanks to the latest revert, I noticed this: "Armenians continue to be the largest minority group in Turkey". Whoever wrote that forgot about the Kurds. And considering the 70+ million turks 70,000 Armenians is a very small percentage. VartanM 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Please resolve the {{Expand}} before nominating. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Demands by the Armenian parliament

Discussion moved here from Talk:Armenian Genocide. It doesn't belong there and that article needs serious pruning, not more additions. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

"301'i at Sevr'i getir". Hürriyet. Retrieved 2007-12-30.

The Armenian Parliament demanded three things from Turkey

1. Armenia Demands that the borders between Armenia and Turkey be redriven based on Treaty of Sèvres. This Armenian parliament says that Turkey signed the Treaty of Kars was not signed by Armenia. Hence why Armenia is basing its territorial claims based on Sèvres since she got independence with the Fall of the Soviet union. Image:TreatyOfSevres (corrected).PNG may provide insight to the overal territorial claims.
2. The Armenian parliament is also demanding 14.5 billion US dollars in compensation of the Armenian Genocide.
3. The Armenian parliament also demands that Turkey alter her constitution and remove 301th article.

Armenian parliament is saying that three conditions of Turkey is unacceptable

1. Turkey demands the borders to stay as is.
2. Turkey demands Nagorno-Karabakh to be resolved in the favor of Azerbaijan.
3. Turkey demands that Armenia drop the Armenian Genocide claim.

This is the info on current news I think should be incorporated to this article. -- Cat ^chi? 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, There's at least some kind of a dialogue now :) Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose demanding territory 3 times your original size can be considered a dialog. -- Cat ^chi? 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They're talking to each other alright... :) Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this does not count on dialogue, Armenians are just making fun of Turks. Unreasonably unreasonable demands :) Khutuck (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose demanding 3.5% or 2% of a countries GDP (Turkeys GDP is calculated as ~$411 billion USD (nominal) and ~$708 billion USD (PPP)) can be considered a dialog. Armenias GDP is 14.17 billion USD (PPP). The money Armenia demands from Turkey is more than the GDP of Armenia. -- Cat ^chi? 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Armenia, we don't have that much, we are already in debt. As we say in Turkish "Olsa dükkan sizin". Can we pay in nuts? We have lots of nuts if you like.--Doktor Gonzo 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Doktor Gonzo, I'd like to bring it to your attention that this is not a forum and this space is only reserved for discussing on how to improve this article.VartanM (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to articles with political contents, the efforts are rarely about improving the article. Wikipedia should stick with articles concerning only Science and Mathematics. I know, I know, I am still not helping the article, whatever.--Doktor Gonzo 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Do not remove this section again. -- Cat ^chi? 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this claim? VartanM (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have: "301'i at Sevr'i getir". Hürriyet. Retrieved 2007-12-30. I am sure Armenian speakers can read about this in Armenian. -- Cat ^chi? 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A) That is a Turkish nationalist publication therefore not reliable. B) We have to rely on your knowledge of Turkish and your translation.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh this is excellent. So I can't use the Turkish government as a source, I cant use Turkish media as a source... Just what Turkish source can I use at all? Have you heard of the policy WP:AGF? You ought to read it. You can find some other Turkish speaker to translate it with my blessings. -- Cat ^chi? 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

White Cat: please explain the relevance of this and what changes you would like made to the article. Wikipedia talk pages are neither blogs nor forums. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For starters Armenian Genocide is a major dispute between Armenia and Turkey. The demands of Armenian government and Turkish government over the topic in question are notable enough to be in this article. Let me explain in greater detail.

#2 Armenian demand requires a compensation for the Armenian Genocide. Clearly this belongs to the article.

#3 Armenian demand is the alteration to the Turkish constitution. Armenian government argues that 301th article prevents discussion on the Armenian Genocide in Turkey as I believe in the past people have been on trial per this article for making statements regarding Armenian Genocide not in line with government perspective. Article 301 is already mentioned in the article.

#3 Turkish demand requests Armenia to drop this 'Armenian Genocide claim' completely.

Disputes over territory is again compensation related. Armenian Government is requesting territory from Turkey per Armenian Genocide. It seems neither country wants to back up territorial claims. I am not certain how much this territory thing belongs to this article but its mention cant hurt.

This is the material with direct connection.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting you're propaganda, but Armenian government has no demands from Turkey. On contrary it is Turkey that demands that Armenia to stop the recognition of Armenian Genocide and to stop supporting NKR.

• National Assambly website[5] show me where Armenia demands anything from Turkey. VartanM (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a reliable, reasonably neutral source in English, I suppose? For why I'm asking for English-language sources, see here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• This was on Turkish media recently (I saw it today). It may take a day or two to catch up on English media as it isn't a critical issue. The statement according to the Turkish newspaper was based on Armenian Parliament. I quote the Turkish source "Noyan Topan, Arm İnfo, Mediamax, PanArmenia ajansları haberlerine göre 19-20 Aralık tarihleri arasında Ermenistan Meclisi 'Türkiye ile ilişkiler' özel oturumunda[...]" which translates to "Agencies Noyan Topan, Arm İnfo, Mediamax, PanArmenia reported that the Armenian Parliament discussed 'Relations with turkey' between 19 and 20 December on a special session. -- Cat ^chi? 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only demand that Armenia has is for Turkey to stop its illegal blockade. The same newspaper White Cat presented claims that PKK hides in NK VartanM (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, officially the government doesn't even demand the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey as a precondition for resumption of diplomatic relations despite what user White Cat and his Turkish nationalist sources claim. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss fine points of Turkish politics concerning PKK. -- Cat ^chi? 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be removing this section again on Monday, under wikipedia guidelines because it is not a valid contribution to discussions about the content of the article. Please, to those who are contibuting here in good faith, do not add further material to a pointless discussion. We already have 18 archives that are mostly full of pointless discussions. Meowy 23:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NB, and for the record, I made the above comment when this discussion was part of the Armenian Genocide talk page. Meowy 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You will do no such thing. -- Cat ^chi? 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There I found another source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=24449&page=4 -- Cat ^chi? 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't. The article is quoting an ARF member and his opinion regarding the legality of the border. What does this have to do with this article? How does it back up your claims that the Armenian government has preconditions?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An Armenian source regarding the hearings quoting the National Assembly speaker who reitarated the governments position of having no preconditions for normalization of relations with Turkey unlike what White Cat claimed.[6] -

“ European states are interested in normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations and opening of the border,” he added. “Armenia doesn’t push preconditions while Turkey’s position is quite opposite. We insist on resolution of the issue in the framework of European integration. ”

-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A second ago people were talking about how such a meeting never happened... I suppose this is progress. Sources will be used as is. The discussions in the Armenian parliament ended on 20 december. Obviously an article published on the 19th wont have a governmental position. Obviously people talk their hearts out in such meetings. -- Cat ^chi? 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued sarcasm is rude and uncivil. Read: WP:CIVIL if you haven't already. I didn't see anyone doubting the existence of the hearings, the only thing that was in doubt was the allegations stemming from the source you presented. The government already has a position, which is FAR from what you and your source claimed it to be.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. You know this is really interesting. A day ago you were comparing the Turkish gov to Nazi gov and now you are here lecturing me on fine of civility. Can you link me to the position of the government? -- Cat ^chi? 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Comments such as "I suppose this is progress." is uncivil and provocative, saying you were serious is even more so. Saying that i'm "lecturing" you is also uncivil. Please read: WP:AGF as well while you're at it. I linked you to a recent quote from the National Assembly speaker referring to the official government position, you may continue your research on your own. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone move this discussion to Armenian-Turkish_relations. VartanM (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

POV_forks it says:

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.

may be help your ideas.--Qwl (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do not trust White_Cat's translation, here an Armenian's translation. See "Academician responds to Armenian parliament demands" part. Khutuck (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Khutuck, blogs are not reliable sources. Secondly those are the opinions of Savas Egilmez. As you can see from above discussion, it was proven that no such hearing took place in the Armenian parliament. VartanM (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnot give this blog as a resource to the article, otherwise i would have added it. I believe such an hearing had taken place in the Armenian parliament, but i cannot find a source as i dont speak Armenian and you don't accept any source published in Turkey. Hürriyet is the Turkish equivalent of NY Times, but we are not allowed to add it as a source. Anyway, i hope i'll find a reliable (for everyone!) source denoting such a hearing had taken place, and i will directly add to the article once i find it. Khutuck (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has a very Armenian perspective to it, and is thus not neutral. Something needs to be done about it. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Most of the article is sourced with over 60 different references and whatever is questioned already has a citation tag. - Fedayee (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "GHF" :
  • {{cite news |title=The Ties That Divide |url= http://www.globalheritagefund.org/news/GHF_in_the_news/economist_ties_that_divide_june_17_06.asp |publisher=The Economist print edition via ''Global Heritage Fund'' |date= [[June 15]], [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-08-26 }}
  • [http://www.globalheritagefund.org/news/GHF_in_the_news/economist_ties_that_divide_june_17_06.asp GlobalHeritageFund.org The Ties That Divide]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian view: the only view

I do not mean to rehash what has been hashed forever here and everywhere, but permit me to say that this seems to be a strictly Armenian point of view of the relationship between the two countries. Secondly, relationship between the two peoples and states is often confused. Also given that a State of Armenia did not exist before 1920 or so, the large volume of reference to previous centuries exposes the real intent of the propgandists. While there is plenty mateiral about how and why Armenians feel what they feel towards the Turks and Turkey, the opposite is totally missing! Even ASALA was not given a paragraph initially, with the incredible claim that most Armenians did not know about it and it was not really relevant! Even the overt claims of land from Turkey by various Armenian leaders and scholars is disupted and has not found a proper place here. Here is my favorite: While the freedom of expression in Turkey and such laws and their applications are examined in detail here, one hears nothing of the sort about such freedoms in Armenia! What happens to anyone who does not toe the official line there? What happened to the Turkish scholar who bought an old book from a street vendor in Armenia?--Murat (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The things you have been recently trying to get into the article are laughable. "Great Powers who were struggling among themselves about how to carve up the rapidly declining Ottoman Empire". Britain, France, Italy, Austria, and Germany were all engaged in propping up the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century - in the 1850s fighting on the side of the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean war, in the 1880s restoring and securing much of its territory through the Treaty of Berlin. And as for "Armenian Rebellions", inserting made-up stuff by genocide-denialists does you little credit. Meowy 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you display a laughable lack of understanding of the Great Power dynamics that Ottomans exploited so effectively to keep their Empire going for another century. It is laughable becasue you throw yourself into these topics with such gusto. British supported Turks during Crimean crisis becasue they were afraid of Russian gains in Ottoman lands. Yiu thiught they loved Turks? The balancing act worked until WWI, which among its root causes has the divisian of the Ottoman lands and what is left of it. This is high school history stuff by the way. But for a good treatment I highly recommend David Fromkin. As for Armenian rebellions, are you suggesting they did not take place? These pages are full of articles describing every single one of them! Oh, I am sorry... they call them "defensive actions"! How can such a significant and violent piece of history between the two people and Ottomans be amiss from an article with this title? That is what is truly laughable.--Murat (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So you now agree with me that during the 19th century various European Powers took action to support the Ottoman Empire in order to halt or minimise its collapse. That is the exact opposite of the text you wanted inserted. You claim that one of the root causes of WW1 was "the division of the Ottoman lands"! I think you should read some history books and discover that it was the Ottoman Empire that eagerly entered into the WW1 conflict on the side of Germany, and it did so because of its own expansionist aims. Before that, the Allies had tried to persuade the Ottoman Empire to remain neutral. Meowy 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you are getting it. Ottomans played various powers against each other for a long while. Fear that Russia would get a hold of Straights was the reason for Britain and France supporting the Ottomans against Russians at various times. They were protecting their "future" property and gains basically. Ottomans also had to bribe them generously. Britain and France and Italy had loaned much money at enormous interests that Ottomans could not pay, becasue they were fighting wars continuously. So, they took over all income from railways, taxes, trade etc., so they gained tremeondous economic advantages, dimensions of this blood-scuking is hard to grasp today, and the process is called "capitulations" in our history books. It is considered among the prime reasons for the collapse. In any case, once there was nothing left to extract, then the question was who gets what of the carcass of the empire. That was why they raced with each other to extend "protection" to various minorities to cultivate their future clients and it was also a good stick to beat the Turks with. The so called humanitarian concerns provided a good cover for what was really going on. Armenians exploited this situation the most as you well know. Contrary to your claim, Turks did not really have much choice about WWI entry. The government was very pro-British actually, they even begged them to take Turkey in as a mandate! Churchill did not care for it much, he saw Ottomans as finished. Among all the powers, Germans had the least designs on the Ottomans and were more neutral. Though much is said of Enver's admiration for Germans, and he certainly had good reason to turst their victory, it was a bit more than that. British were all determined to carve up Middle East, they did not need the Sultan and Enver did not have much of a say.--Murat (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, your words are so funny, you must write comedy for a living! Either that or fantasy fiction. Where on earth do you get these ideas from? Meowy 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You should leave that fake parallel universe behind once in a while and smell the roses. All of the above is textbook knowledge. The question is, how come you are so alien to topics you are so involved in. Do I have to teach you people not just Armenian, but also Ottoman history?--Murat (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Textbook knowledge" found only in Turkish textbooks. Therein lies your problem, Murat. Meowy 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, there is just one view here. Self deception of this magnitude deserves a whole new article by itself I think, but I do not have a medical degree.--Murat (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Rebellions

There were many of them, and they have all been covered by numerous Wiki articles. See Van Resistance, or Sasun, or Zeytun rebellions for example. These were wtitten or edited by the same editors who are objectiong their mention here now. These rebellions were among the main reasons for extreme measures against this population. Armed revolts did take place no matter what the motivations, causes or explanations are. How can they not be relevant to this article? I encourage any discussion here.--Murat (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resistance is not a rebellion. Your sources are not neutral.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's time for Resistance during the Armenian Genocide.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is time for the article Armenian Rebellions. It will be my pleasure to write it using mostly Armenian POV sources. One wonders why so much resistance to call well organized armed revolts what they are: rebellions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.112.158 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The book An American Physician in Turkey[7] clearly shows that the insurrection at Van was NOT a rebellion. This is a primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An armed insurgency of the citizens of a state within the borders of a state is called a rebellion, revolt but never "resistance". Look it up in a dictionary, and I did point this out earlier, many times. That is how it is recorded in history, even in the Armenian documents and even in your so-called primary source. It is a mystery why this simple fact should cause such a controversy. Regardless, these events, did take place, and Armenians did fight the security forces, police and the army not to mention Muslims of the regions. How can this be skipped over in an article with this title? You are only kidding yourself, no one else.--Murat (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's hear it from the horse's mouth, a "primery source" as one may call it. Here a letter from Boghos Nubar Pasa (yes, an Armenian Ottomans saw fit to give high level official responsibility at one time, now representing Armenian "interests" sitting next to his country's enemies!) to the French government, making a case for his slice of the Ottoman lands during the 1919 Paris Conference:

"Monsieur le Ministre,

I have the honor, in the name of the Armenian National Delegation, of submitting to Your Excellency the following declaration, at the same time reminding him:

That the Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, "de facto belligerents," as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakeable attachment to the cause of the Entente:

In France, through their volunteers, who started joining the Foreign Legion in the first days and covered themselves with glory under the French flag;

In Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the National Delegation at the request of the government of the Republic itself, made up more than half of the French contingent and played a large role in the victory of General Allenby, as he himself and his French chiefs have officially declared;

In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers contributed to the liberation of a portion of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevist withdrawal right up to the signing of an armistice."

He calls them belligerents, fighting against Ottoman Government! Is there really anything else to add?--Murat (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More biased garbage from the anti-Armenian site: Tall Armenian Tale[8]. You've proven nothing, except your inability to find unbiased sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a dated and signed letter from a key Armenian leader of the time. He begs for some recognition and consideration for the fact that his people fought against their own state! It is available from numerous sources. I am glad though that you are at least keeping informed of the real story, even if you try not to let the facts cloud your judgements on these matters.--Murat (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Objectivity

This article, like many others, have been turned into a an Armenian propaganda piece. It is hard for a casual reader to realize that this is actually Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history. Mostly Armenian history and heritage has been included and all attempts to balance it have been thwarted by POV editors. Various discussions above attest to this. In addition, the tag idenfying the disputed nature of the article have been blatantly removed, though a statement that clearly forbids such removal without a resolution is part of the tag removed.--Murat (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)