Talk:Armenian genocide: Difference between revisions
→Jewish involvement?: Agree |
→Jewish involvement?: Rmv irrelevant blather |
||
Line 315: | Line 315: | ||
: The names of all Jews, Roma, and other peoples killed by the Nazis are ''not'' known either. But the documentation that is left is extremely convincing. Other documentations that were discovered in past 3 decades, especially those regarding the massacre of physically disabled people, ''prove'' the crimes of the Nazis and categorize the Holocaust as a ''genocide''. That also goes to the Armenian ''genocide''. Although it was not as heavy as the European Holocaust, it was still the first systematic ''genocide'' of a minority group, and the historical records are convincing! The European Holocaust is ''not'' the standard for a genocide.{{unsigned|82.82.128.9|19:18, January 6, 2008}} |
: The names of all Jews, Roma, and other peoples killed by the Nazis are ''not'' known either. But the documentation that is left is extremely convincing. Other documentations that were discovered in past 3 decades, especially those regarding the massacre of physically disabled people, ''prove'' the crimes of the Nazis and categorize the Holocaust as a ''genocide''. That also goes to the Armenian ''genocide''. Although it was not as heavy as the European Holocaust, it was still the first systematic ''genocide'' of a minority group, and the historical records are convincing! The European Holocaust is ''not'' the standard for a genocide.{{unsigned|82.82.128.9|19:18, January 6, 2008}} |
||
::For the record, the Nazis killed physically disabled and mentally retarded etc., because of [[Nazi eugenics]] (look at the section where Hitler talks about Sparta). So it's not like they did it because of a specific ''genocide plan'' or something like that, it's about their Social Darwinist beliefs. I'm not so sure if killing mentally retarded counts as a genocide. We're not exactly talking about a valid ethnic group here (as sarcastic as that sounds). Of course, killing [[Romani]] people, [[Jew]]s, etc. is genocide because it amounts to destroying an ethnic group. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
::For the record, the Nazis killed physically disabled and mentally retarded etc., because of [[Nazi eugenics]] (look at the section where Hitler talks about Sparta). So it's not like they did it because of a specific ''genocide plan'' or something like that, it's about their Social Darwinist beliefs. I'm not so sure if killing mentally retarded counts as a genocide. We're not exactly talking about a valid ethnic group here (as sarcastic as that sounds). Of course, killing [[Romani]] people, [[Jew]]s, etc. is genocide because it amounts to destroying an ethnic group. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
||
== Jewish involvement? == |
|||
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttjNZcqejnA There are those who claim the Jews had a role in orchestrating this genocide.] Is it anywhere close to the truth to be in this article? — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
"You are an idiot" - there are those who claim this. Is it anywhere close to the truth? Go back to watching (or making) youtube videos and leave Wikipedia alone. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You call me an idiot again and I'll get you blocked for [[WP:CIVIL]]. I asked a perfectly valid question. There are those who have theories about Jewish involvement in the Armenian genocide. For asking this question, I got called an idiot and this section was blanked in less than 24 hours (pretty much censored out). It's quite amazing how offended people get on behalf of Jews. Don't bother replying if you have nothing worthwhile to say. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
::No need to be uncivil - just say "no" and move along ... , oh, and the answer to the above question is "no". [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you base that no-answer on? There are those who have theories about Jews having a role in the Armenian genocide (Chris Bjerknes). Whether this is historically accurate or not, I think it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article (in an NPOV manner, of course). — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
::::Of course their were some Jewish people involved in the Armenian Genocide, along with Germans, Austrians, Albanians, Venezulans, English, Italians...even Armenians...a whole variety of people with different backgrounds may have had '''some role''' in the Armenian Genocide...so what is your point? I think that the history is pretty clear concerning who was responsible - what group/groups, what individuals and their backgrounds, what actions they undertook and concerning what beliefs they held and what their philosophy and motivations might have been - etc. I don't recall any of them having any type of memorial in Tel Aviv. And I can't say I have ever come accross any legitimate scholar claiming anything of the sort that you are suggesting. Now I think we might find that many scholars hold the belief that the Armenian Genocide is proof that there is no god. Perhaps we should include something in the article concerning Atheism and the Armenian Genocide eh? That seems notable...certainy as much as mentioning the conspiracy theory beliefs of a bunch of know nothing racists.--[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Look, these theories are floating around the internet as we speak. Be they conspiracy/racist theories or not, I think they sound interesting. Of course, some of what Chris Bjerknes is saying, I disregard immediately as ''unlikely''. However, there are other things he's pointing to that sounds fairly reasonable. Now I'm not saying it must be true because it sounds convincing, but at the very least, it sounds notable for inclusion. He may very well be on to something, and calling me an idiot for bringing this up on the talk page, is ridiculous. As for the existence of God, are you serious? I mean, seriously, where the hell did that come from? We're discussing people who have theories about the Armenian genocide. Not some pathetic excuse to worthless atheism. Go promote your atheism somewhere else. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
::::::You obviously have a problem with believing everything you read.--[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::OK - if you find the Atheist position "uninteresting" perhaps we could include mention of the view that the Armenian Genocide was just "God's will" and the Turks were just the instrument carrying it out (thus are blameless in the whole matter...I mean those who hold this view would reason that it was obviously predetermined to be and in accordance to god's will - no?)....anyway I really don't think that what you particularly believe to be "interesting" or not is sufficient criteria for inclusion of dubious non-facts, unfounded speculation or otherwise non-scholarly positions into the article - much as I don't think the article should reflect someone's unsubstantiated personal opinion regarding the legitimacy of Hitler's quote concerning the annihilation of the Armenians (beyond the fact that it is yet another thing deniers lable so-called or invent fictional consipiracies about...) over the view that is widely and popularly accepted - that it is indeed genuine and consitent with his views elsewhere expressed - the view that is held by the vast majority of scholars on this issue (and has been confirmed by such) and by others - such as the Holocaust museum in Washinton DC. Furthermore the influence of the knowledge of the sucess of the CUP/Ottoman Turks in the Armenian Genocide on the (willingness of the Germans to undertake the extermination of the Jews and other undesireables) is likewise fully accepted by scholars (those who acknowledge that indeed the Armenian Genocide itself is factual of course...) --[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I am going to completely disregard the atheism subject as nothing but off topic nonsense. However, I have to answer one opinion of yours you attributed to me: ''You obviously have a problem with believing everything you read.'' — This is not true. I don't at all believe everything I read. However, since I'm not ignorant or narrow-minded, I am entirely open to the notion that '''everything is possible'''. I think the claim that the Jewish Holocaust, could be the biggest hoax of the 20th century, is entirely possible, even though I actually don't believe the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. Likewise, I am also open to any claims based on research that Jews could've had an involvment behind the scenes in the Armenian genocide (even though, I think it's most likely exaggeration, and probably not true). Now, there is a writer (Chris Bjerknes) who states that Jews had an involvement in the Armenian genocide, he has even written a book about this. Therefore, I think this should be mentioned in the article if we could find some reliable sources to his claims. To my knowledge, so far, no scholar has been a complete idiot and claimed that Christians should convert to atheism because of the Armenian genocide. So please refrain from ridiculous and worthless '''Argumentum Ad Atheism''' fallacies henceforth (lol, I think I just coined that). — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::::::You introduce the absurd notion of Jewish “behind the scenes involvement” in the Armenian Genocide – that by the way is entirely absent in any serious scholarly work – even as any kind of a footnote - beyond perhaps the mention of some anti-Semitism in the British Middle East section of the Foreign Office that led to many faulty and inadvertent conclusions being made concerning the motivations behind the Young Turk movement…and I really don’t think such makes the cut to deserve mention in this article…even if this is ultimately the source of your particular conspiracy theory. I mean everyone (that matters…that we should care about as relevant scholars) understands the various motivations and influences behind the Young Turks who were responsible for the Armenian Genocide – and they were all concerning Turkish (racist) pan-nationalism and glory (national and personal ) and greed – nothing at all to do with any larger cause or movement having anything to do with Jews – and this rather ridiculous and entirely false and unsupportable notion is only supported by the same folks (like yourself apparently) who likewise deny the Holocaust and find Zionist conspiracies in everything – and then you have the nerve to call my introduction/mention of the very real and serious metaphysical issues regarding what such events such as the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust might tell us about the desires and motivations (or possibly lack of such) regarding human beings, by some diety/dieties (that very many people actually believe in by the way…even as strange and almost incomprehensible as that sounds…) – you call such serious issues “ridiculous and worthless”. Well I find that rather amusing (coming from one who joins this page spouting conspiracy theories such as saying that possibly the Holocaust was a hoax – etc) and of course at the same time I find you rather insulting.--[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::''You introduce the absurd notion of Jewish “behind the scenes involvement” in the Armenian Genocide'' — This notion is actually Chris Bjerkner's. Even though he hasn't put it in those exact words, that's pretty much what he's insinuating. For the record, I have never claimed that the Holocaust is a hoax. There are people who do. I personally don't think the Holocaust is a hoax. I'm just saying it's possible that it is. Though that is really not my serious opinion on the Holocaust. My personal opinion on the Holocaust, if we're going to delve into it, is that the Holocaust has become sort of a pseudo-religion in its own right nowadays (much because of people who imprison revisionists) and lest we forget, [[The Holocaust Industry]]. That is what I personally feel about the Holocaust. Nothing anti-Semitic or conspiracy about that, just being rational. About the atheism thing, you can't be serious about that? You seriously want to include in the article that atheism is growing because of the Armenian genocide? I know there are people who despair in God because of all the human suffering in the world. Personally, I've always found such people weak in faith. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:I propose the entire erasing of this talk-page topic. EliasAlucard is exhibiting troll-like activities. He posts a link to a conspiracy-nut's video, along with a question about whether there is any truth in it. However, later we find that his question has been been asked in bad-faith because he already believes the video, quote, ''"sounds convincing",'' is ''"fairly reasonable"'' and ''"sounds notable for inclusion".'' Furthermore, his statement ''"I think the claim that the Jewish Holocaust could be the biggest hoax of the 20th century is entirely possible"'' reveals this particular editor is trolling the Armenian Genocide talk-page in order to peddle extremist views on the Jewish holocaust that would allways be removed on the Holocaust talk page. If it is not permitted there, then it should not be permitted here. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::While I absolutly agree that this guy is a troll in this regard - I don't support the unilateral erasing of talk page entires by anyone - this is a TALK page - to discuss issues relevant to the article. And while this issue does not warrent inclusion in the article I - it does warrent being talked about in relation to this article IMO.--[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are wrong. It is a talk page about issues arising from '''the content''' of the article. How much of the content buried within those 18 talk-page archives is full of your words? Quite a lot, I bet. And how much of it resulted in changes to the actual article? Almost none, I bet. There is too much waffle, babble, and general off-topic issues in this talk page - it obliterates those discussions that could actually improve the article. If you can't control yourself because you like the sound of your words so much, then it would be better to express them on a proper discussion forum. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::BTW I was not proposing "unilateral erasing" this entry - If I was I would just have just unilaterally erased it! I made a comment proposing its erasing, with my reasoning for it. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am not trolling. I am simply giving you examples, or should I say parallels, in the discussion we're having. That is what I seriously believe, that anything is possible. I'm aware that the Holocaust is a super-sensitive topic; some just get offended for the sake of getting offended, if anyone says anything about the Holocaust that isn't considered orthodox enough. However, to call that trolling, and erasing it out, is lame. Anyway, the Holocaust is not really the issue we're discussing here. Back to Chris Bjerkner. He has been featured in a TV show with Bedros Haijan (see clip [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1300689426988865323 here]), where he puts forth his theories about the Armenian genocide. Everything he's saying is being disregarded immediately as conspiracy, even though we don't know for certain what's the truth and what isn't, in his statements. Shouldn't he at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, like e.g., ''recently there has emerged some conspiracy theories that Jews had an involvement in the Armenian genocide'' ??? — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::I will repeat the concise answer given by [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font>: "no". I wish this topic had ceased at that point! [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No? Why not? — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::::Well, have a look at these two books (Yair Auron: ''The Banality of Indifference. Zionism & the Armenian Genocide'' Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London 2000 ISBN 1-56000-412-6 and Yair Auron: ''The Banality of Denial. Israel and the Armenian Genocide'' Tansaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London 2004 ISBN 0-7658-0834-X). But you won't find big revelations or conspiracy theories in them you might be looking for. If you would like to know more about the Jewish point of view in Palestine during the Genocide (where the settlers were a rather vulnerable minority with their own fears and agendas) or about the backgrounds of Israeli policies of non-recognition these are valuable sources to read. [[User:Apocolocynthosis|Apocolocynthosis]] ([[User talk:Apocolocynthosis|talk]]) 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Interesting. Now we're talking my language :) For those who want to check the books out, you can preview them on Google Books and perhaps also use some passages as references in this article: |
|||
::::::::*http://books.google.com/books?id=WTn2MeIyOoMC&dq=isbn:1560004126 |
|||
::::::::*http://books.google.com/books?id=9Y59ep9oNtsC&dq=isbn:076580834X |
|||
::::::::Thanks a lot for the tip, [[User:Apocolocynthosis|Apocolocynthosis]]. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::::::By the way, Yair Auron seems to be a Jewish scholar, so please, no more ridiculous claims of conspiracy nutjobs or anything dumb like that. The guy is rock solid for this topic. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::::::OK - please provide us with one quote from Yair Auron that in any way indicates some kind of Jewish master plan or what not or even any involvement for undertaking the Armenian Genocide. To my knowledge Auron is stricly concerned with the denial/non-recognition of the well after the fact. The Armenian Genocide itself had absolutly nothing to do with any Jewish plan or involvement and I am not aware of any real scholars who even remotely claim such. And if you understood anything about the condition of Jews in the near East and in Europe during these times you would equally understand the absurdity of such a claim. The Armenian Genocide was undertaken by Turkish hyper-nationalists for stricly Turkish national and racial reasons. The specific ethnicites of the Turks involved had no bearing - they all came out of an environment where Ottoman and Turkish (and Muslim) power and influence was in decline and they wished this situation reversed. All Christians - with Armenians foremost - became "othered" and were seen as a threat against this growing Turkish pan-nationalistic sentiment. There is absolutely no significant Jewish component to this - no Jewish aganeda - and there are no actual scholars who would even remotely support such a view.--[[User:THOTH|THOTH]] ([[User talk:THOTH|talk]]) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I couldn't really care if there are no scholars who don't support such a view. There are many reasons for not supporting it: 1) it's a very controversial view. 2) Jews are a very powerful ethnic group (don't buy that 'we are innocent helpless victims image' they have, Jews are powerful). 3) Jews were a powerful ethnic group in the Ottoman empire. 4) Politically influential Jewish groups today deny that the Armenian genocide was a 'genocide' and very very reluctantly call it a 'massacre' at best (for instance, Israel hasn't recognized the Armenian genocide yet). Why would you deny this genocide, if not for political reasons? I believe Israel has a lot to lose in terms of support from Turkey (virtually, Israel's only ally in the Middle East). But not only that, it could be other reasons, like for instance, if Israel recognized the Armenian genocide, the Turks, knowing well that Jews had an involvement in the genocide, would ruin their cover. 5) Jews did not get massacred by the Young Turks (I wonder why?). Of course, this is all speculation and who knows if this is true or not ''in reality''. But the fact that Israel isn't willing to recognize the Armenian genocide isn't exactly helping their image out in not having anything to do with the Armenian genocide. Had Israel recognized the Armenian genocide and shown support for the Armenians (which Israelis should if they don't want to be enormous hypocrites), I would have no suspicions whatsoever of Jews having an involvement in the Armenian genocide. But right now, it's the other way around, Israel denies the genocide, and Jewish lobby groups in the United States do their damnedest to block resolutions for America to recognize the Armenian genocide. [http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=681E5075-B42C-4501-94EF-A38915A3DA04] Doesn't that make you the least suspicious that there's a political motive behind such immoral and selfish behaviour? And again, don't bring up the scholars argument. Scholars are not omniscient and they sometimes do have a political agenda behind their writings. Now look, most of Chris Bjerkner's theories sound "wild" to put it mildly, he's speculating about everything from crypto-Jews to Jewish Messianic dudes. Yes, I agree that he sounds somewhat of a nutcase. But his other points are interesting and there could very well be some truth in it. Who knows? Chris Bjerkner could suffer from the [[Cassandra syndrome]]. In any case, I have to ask: what makes you so sure of Jews not having any involvement at all in the Armenian genocide, that you pretty much have developed a dogmatic belief about it? As for Yair Auron, I have never read his books nor have I claimed that he supports Chris Bjerkner's theories. I just think he has written interesting books when judging his books by their cover. — <small><small>[[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]] ([[User talk:EliasAlucard|Discussion]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/EliasAlucard|contribs]]) 10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
:::::I'm not sure why we are wasting time discussing this baloney. No reputable scholar supports the claim about Jewish involvement in the Armenian Genocide. Wikipedia policy states [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources exceptional claims require exceptional sources]. This is an article talk page, not a chat room to discuss crank claims off the Net. See [[WP:TALK]]: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". Thank you. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 12:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Following on from the above comment, and given that this particular discussion does appear to be irreversably irrelevant, '''I again propose its complete removal'''. I also propose the removal of the "Armenian Deportations Do Not Constitute Genocide" discussion because it is a discussion about the article's subject, and not about the actual article. If we were all far stricter about the content of this talk page, with editors starting off-subject postings realising that their postings will be removed if their postings do not quickly lead to a discussion about article content, then this page would be far more efficient and useful. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I second your bid to remove this irrelevant talk page section. The other section you mention is dubious too: "The International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague has concluded that deportations alone do not constitute genocide (see case Vidoje Blagojevic apeal, Srebrenica Genocide). Therefore, the deportations of 2 million Armenians do not constitute genocide." That's clearly [[WP:OR|original research]] - extrapolating your own conclusion in such a way is not allowed. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:25, 7 January 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenian genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 |
![]() | Armenian genocide was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 7, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Armenian genocide received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() Archives |
---|
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in a archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC) Archives: |
In Van resistance stub
There is a grammatical mistake.It's an Armenian woman not women. 155.207.252.110 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The text says:"On April 20, 1915, the armed conflict of the Van Resistance began as an Armenian women who wanted to enter the city,..."It's grammatical incorrect. 155.207.249.41 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Missing "Motivation" section
In the Holocaust article there is section about the motivation as:
- Yehuda Bauer argues that:
- [T]he basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination, where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations, on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology — which was then executed by very rational, pragmatic means.
Either he is not considering the "Armenian Genocide" a genocide or he thinks that there were motivations that were not based on myths or he is just wrong and there were genocides that were based on myths before also. Which is the case here? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you are very confused. Please also remember that this is not a forum. --VartanM (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Erased stuff
I removed the following:
- Of an estimated pre-war population of 1.8 to 2.4 million in the six eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire,[3] approximately 1.2 to 1.7 million Armenians were exterminated in government organized deportations and massacres in towns and villages strewn across Eastern Anatolia. Under the pretext of disloyalty, the Ottoman government charged that Armenians were siding with the Russian Empire and stipulated that the deportations were born out of the necessity to preserve national security.
I deleted it because: No credible source that I have ever seen gives a figure of 2.4 million Armenians for just the six Eastern provinces. Even 2.4 million for the whole of the Ottoman Empire may be excessive. Any source that gives a 2.4 million figure should be treated with the same caution as one which gives an excessively small figure (i.e., a figure should not be used unless it is contained in numerous separate and neutral sources - so give me several sources that mention 2.4 million). The introductory section should be about general facts - not distortions: it is a distortion to imply that "eastern Anatolia" was where most Armenians were living and were killed - most victims did not live in eastern Anatolia. No "pretext of disloyalty" cover-story was involved in many of the deportations/massacres, and anyway (and again) that sort of detailed information should be in the main body of the text, not the introductory section. Meowy 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- And then Xenophon777 undid the edit. I will wait for a response to my above comments before deciding whether to redo my edit. Meowy 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- When you deleted it you seemed in your comment to the edit to be arguing that the number of Armenians in the eastern vilayets was too high; yet that was sourced and you provided no countersource, nor a reason why the source was not good, other than that the number seemed too high to you. (Why, by the way?) Also, you deleted more than what pertained to the level of the pre-1915 Armenian population in the east. While I know that many Armenians lived in various placed around Anatolia, and beyond, I knew of no reason why the bulk of the Armenian population of Anatolia wouldn't have been found in the east. Would you have either a basis for arguing that the cited source is unsound, or else another source to suggest a different number, or to suggest that other reasons (or no reasons) for the deportations (whether as a pretext or otherwise) were used? Candidly, if you go and re-do your earlier edit as you suggest that you may, it's not like I'm planning to watch it and pop in to undo it. However, in good faith I saw no basis for the removal of the prior text. Xenophon777 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hands off Meowy. This issue has already been discussed ad naseum and there is a supporting article on Ottoman Armenian population figures that is quite balanced and revealing. The comment is both sourced and confirms with what is most widely accepted within academia. You have no right and no basis to delete or change it in any way without overwhelming contrary citation.--THOTH (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Talking about sources - if we are in the business of accepting sources regardless of their accuracy, like you seem to want, then I must dig out and use the numerous Turkish sources that put the Armenian population at under a million and the figures for those that died at 150,000 or less (as low as 30,000 according to one Turkish "expert"). Meowy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- You do yourself no favors by introducing such laughable Turkish positions.--THOTH 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- This wikipedia entry also contradicts itself. The sentence containing the figures you say are correct, 1.2 to 1.7 million dead in EASTERN ANATOLIA ALONE, is completely contradicted by a later section Armenian_Genocide#Armenian_deaths.2C_1914_to_1918 which says from 300,000 to 1,500,000 dead for ALL OF ANATOLIA. Meowy 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- And of course there is the Ottoman_Armenian_Population entry which, using many sources, gives a maximum Armenian population of 2.5 million FOR THE WHOLE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. It seems that the ONLY source that says 2.4 million for EASTERN ANATOLIA ALONE is this "The War of the World" book, (a general work, as its title suggests). Why does Thoth think it is so precious that its figures alone should be used in the introductory section of this entry? Meowy 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yawn...this has already all been extensively covered in the archives of this talk page already...--THOTH 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- And of course there is the Ottoman_Armenian_Population entry which, using many sources, gives a maximum Armenian population of 2.5 million FOR THE WHOLE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. It seems that the ONLY source that says 2.4 million for EASTERN ANATOLIA ALONE is this "The War of the World" book, (a general work, as its title suggests). Why does Thoth think it is so precious that its figures alone should be used in the introductory section of this entry? Meowy 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Talking about sources - if we are in the business of accepting sources regardless of their accuracy, like you seem to want, then I must dig out and use the numerous Turkish sources that put the Armenian population at under a million and the figures for those that died at 150,000 or less (as low as 30,000 according to one Turkish "expert"). Meowy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hands off Meowy. This issue has already been discussed ad naseum and there is a supporting article on Ottoman Armenian population figures that is quite balanced and revealing. The comment is both sourced and confirms with what is most widely accepted within academia. You have no right and no basis to delete or change it in any way without overwhelming contrary citation.--THOTH (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is "yawn" the extent of your argument? Before I made my edit I looked back at all talk page postings for this year, and found no discussion about these 2.4 million Armenian population / 1.7 million dead figures for eastern Anatolia alone. Meowy 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- yup...yawn...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population and you also may want check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_casualties. I believe there were discussions in this talk page preceeding the creation of both of these two articles. --THOTH 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTW petty (and unsubstantiated) disputing of (death) figures is one of the most well known tactics of genocide deniers. Plus you have insuficient rational to justify your deletion - particularly since you have not participated in any disucsions of the article and have just come in making unsubstantiated changes.--THOTH 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unless and until you can address my point regarding the fact that the population and casualty figures (that I have erased) contradicted population and casualty figures given later in this entry (and in the entry for Ottoman Armenian Population), please stop reverting my edit. Meowy 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nor Ottoman Armenian casulaties article neither Ottoman Armenian population article support Thoth contention. There was slightly over 2 million Armenian in the entire Ottoman Empire, and between 600,000 to 1.5 million have died. It is from very unlikely to impossible that there could have been 2.4 million Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Actually both articles Thoth uses support what Meowy is saying not the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.230.183 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So what if you heard it from your grandfathers
- Moved the non-article related comment to Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Arguments#So_what_if_you_heard_it_from_your_grandfathers Kerem Özcan (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV Article
This article about only an allegations of Armenia. Turkey refuse this define. there isnt any proof about that events defines as a genocide. Acording to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 1.2 bias this article name have to change as 1915 Armenian Events. In 18 Jan 1919, High Superintendent of Police of Britain Admiral Calthrope took 120 suspect about Armenian Genocide. There was a law court in Malta Island. They judge them. britain court didnt find any proof. And Britain court wanted support from US for proof. Because of US had a representatives about this events in Ottoman Country. US says 'We dont have any proof about Armenian Genocide' to Britain Court. At the end of this court, 29 July 1921, Britain court have acquit all of the suspects. this is real. [1]--Qwl (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try reading WP:NPOV again. This isn't "equal time for opposing ideas where one is credible and one's transparently false, and everyone who has the vaguest clue what they're talking about endorses the former". Flat Earth positions don't make up half of Earth, and Holocaust deniers don't get half the article on the Holocaust. WilyD 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Turkey dont accept Armenian genocide allegations. there isnt any verdict about Turkey dont right. Also Turkey have a verdict against the Armenian Genocide Allegations. i wrote above--Qwl (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Armenian genocide is completely, thoroughly and utterly demonstrated to have occured. This article already gives way more voice to Turkey's position than is really appropriate. Please read WP:NPOV again - it does not mandate equal time to every position, rather it mandates that views and positions that
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
— WP:NPOV
- which here means that we give Turkey's official position the weight it deserves, which is less than we're already giving it. Nobody who has the foggiest notion of what they're talking about denies any of the facts as they're laid down. One might easily write Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide to fully explore Turkey's position. But we're trying to write a neutral, fair, balanced and intellectually honest article about the Armenian Genocide, which means we don't pussyfoot around the fact that it occured. Period. WilyD 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That article already exists in Denial of the Armenian Genocide along with Recognition of the Armenian GenocideVartanM (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting me there, eh? WilyD 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That article already exists in Denial of the Armenian Genocide along with Recognition of the Armenian GenocideVartanM (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- which here means that we give Turkey's official position the weight it deserves, which is less than we're already giving it. Nobody who has the foggiest notion of what they're talking about denies any of the facts as they're laid down. One might easily write Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide to fully explore Turkey's position. But we're trying to write a neutral, fair, balanced and intellectually honest article about the Armenian Genocide, which means we don't pussyfoot around the fact that it occured. Period. WilyD 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or advocacy. see the bias: Let the facts speak for themselves. and especially see the WP:EXTREMIST. in this article name must change because it is about wikipedia calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". it is the same as the terrorist define. you never write a terrorist about Y.--Qwl (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Front de libération du Québec (Québec Liberation Front), commonly known as the FLQ, and sometimes referred to as Front de libération Québécois was a left-wing terrorist group in Canada responsible for more than 200 bombings and the deaths of at least five people, which culminated in 1970 with what is known as the October Crisis.
- When they are, yeah, we do. WilyD 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
wrong is wrong. someone will correct it. but the rules are clear. see WP:EXTREMIST. A lot of country dont accept this allegations, also Turkey refuse it. see:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide Nations and states. this article have bias. dont allow the Turkey documents. Source:Massacre Exerted By The Armenian On The Turks During World War I government document here: [2] See the photos in a web site here: [3] also here: [4] see the malta law court with all the coutries' gov. documents here : [5] --Qwl (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Armenians are massacred in Subatan by Turks, or other way around?
There is a push from talk to represent those events as Armenians killing Turks. Please share you opinions here. Steelmate (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please correct the writing of my added picture in the article. It have a resource there. someone changed it with opposite one without resources. Please coorect.--Qwl (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed the picture as it is about a different event. This is article about Armenian Genocide, not as you call it Massacres of Turks by Armenians. You may want to create a seperate page for that event. Steelmate (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
you especially divides the Armenian allegations with Turkey allegations. You make FAKE. You hide the realites. thats NPOV. You say LIE. you try two show an allegation as a reality. WP:EXTREMIST. --Qwl (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Every opinion is expressed here. You are trying to bring inappropriate information to that article, it deserves a seperate page as I said, just like Khojaly Massacre or Sumgait Massacre. Steelmate (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It could also be mentioned in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide page. Meowy 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Welsh recognition?
Claims are made here, and on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page, that Wales recognizes an Armenian Genocide. The footnote on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page is dead (so cannot be investigated, but from its title does not look like a likely source on which to base this claim). The footnote (number 129) on the Armenian Genocide page, is a link to a National Assembly for Wales web page on which there is a Written Statement of Opinion concerning "Genocide of the Armenians". This would appear to be the basis of the claim of Welsh recognition. If so, it is erroneous.
According to Andrew Chambers of Assembly Parliamentary Services, National Assembly For Wales, "Statements of Opinion are a mechanism for Members to draw attention to issues of concern or highlight achievements by putting their views on a subject on record and canvassing support from other Members. The statements only represent the opinion of Members who subscribe to them. They cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales."
If a Written Statement of Opinion cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales, a Written Statement of Opinion can not be used as the evidence to support the claim that Wales, or the Welsh Assembly, recognizes an Armenian Genocide. This claim needs either to be supported with documented evidence (i.e. a resolution passed by the National Assembly for Wales) or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake the bookbinder (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking (or acknowledging) about genocide being illegal in Turkey
Completely untrue. There are conferences held frequently about it. Some of them had speakers such as Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay. If it was illegal, they would be the first ones to be prosecuted. The "insulting Turkishness" cases are filed by an individual ultra nationalist lawyer. Most of them are dropped in the first case, and there are just a few prosecutions and not all off them are Armenian Genocide related. Of course that doesn't change the fact that Article 301 is a shame, but saying that it's illegal is a misinformation.
Plus there's no law regulating this in anyway. In contrast, it's illegal to deny it in France and Switzerland by law. I wish Hrant Dink was alive, such a wise guy. He was planning to go to France and commit this crime, if he were not to die. May he rest in peace. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Completely untrue. There are conferences held frequently about it" - I bet they are, and there is an army of historians working in Turkey on Armenian Genocide finding new ways to deny it. That I believe. Now name me ONE person in Turkey who acknowledges Armenian Genocide and has not been persecuted. Not all "insulting Turkishness" are because of acknowledging AG, but all those who did acknowledged AG have been persecuted by "insulting Turkishness".Steelmate (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just gave you two names, Berktay and Akçam. As I said, most of the "insulting turkishness" cases are refused by the court before the first hearing. Plus in the cases that are related to AG the defendants are not charged of "acknowledging", but the prosecutors usually pick some parts from their statements, that sound offensive out of its context. For example, Dink was prosecuted for his words "replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk", though what he meant was something completely different [6] Another example is Elif Şafak, a turkish writer, who was brought in front of the court for a speech by one of her novel characters. Plus, unless I'm wrong, until now all the convictions were suspended, and nobody is in jail because of "insulting turkishness". Of course as I said before, this doesn't whitewash the Article 301, or changes the fact that it's a shame for the Turks/Turkish government. It's undeniable that it's a taboo to speak about, and the ones talk about it openly faces a strong phsycological oppression, but it's simply not true that it's illegal to speak about it. Kerem Özcan (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about Akçam. Doesn't he live in Germany? Is he still a Turkish citizen? Perhaps Ragıp Zarakolu can be mentioned. Hakob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just gave you two names, Berktay and Akçam. As I said, most of the "insulting turkishness" cases are refused by the court before the first hearing. Plus in the cases that are related to AG the defendants are not charged of "acknowledging", but the prosecutors usually pick some parts from their statements, that sound offensive out of its context. For example, Dink was prosecuted for his words "replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk", though what he meant was something completely different [6] Another example is Elif Şafak, a turkish writer, who was brought in front of the court for a speech by one of her novel characters. Plus, unless I'm wrong, until now all the convictions were suspended, and nobody is in jail because of "insulting turkishness". Of course as I said before, this doesn't whitewash the Article 301, or changes the fact that it's a shame for the Turks/Turkish government. It's undeniable that it's a taboo to speak about, and the ones talk about it openly faces a strong phsycological oppression, but it's simply not true that it's illegal to speak about it. Kerem Özcan (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, strange, but neither in Sweden is it illegal to research on the Genocide of the Assyrians. From AGOS 12/14/2007: The Assyrian sociologist Fuat Deniz, 40, died after being stabbed by an unknown assailant at Orebro University, in Sweden. He was researching about the persecution and killings of the Assyrians during World War I in the Ottoman Empire... Well Ali Bayramoglu is still alive - a Turk in Turkey acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. But for how long? Life is dangerous among Turkish Nationalists. Apocolocynthosis (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't picnic while around any ultra-nationalist group. I don't remember Armenians complaining while Turkish diplomats were being murdered by Armenian terrorists.--Doktor Gonzo 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might be right. But we are on the Armenian Genocide's discussion page. Researchers on the Genocide are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. What is your comment on this sad fact? Apocolocynthosis (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Murder of Turkish diplomats have a lot to do with this genocide agenda. As for the 'state sponsored terrorism', I wouldn't call it that, but apperantly, according to the press, some subjects of the state (the police especially) are turning a blind eye to what's happening, the death threats, murders etc. which is of course frightening for someone who values justice for all. Still, I don't think it would be a different case if Armenians were in their shoes, they don't mind turning to brute force themselves.--Doktor Gonzo 20:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Article 301
- A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
- A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
- In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
- Meowy 20:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC
- I guess you forgot add the 4th line. Probably unintentionally. So let me complete it: 4) Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime. Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I intentionally missed it out for brevity. I guess we should be thankful that thought-crime isn't officially on the statute-books in Turkey. It is there unofficially: a Turkish author was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) under article 301 for words spoken by a fictional character in one of her books. And, btw, I do know that in Britain recently a woman was actually convicted of a terrorist offense just for creating a work of fiction. But that is off-topic, see my other comment below. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well next time when you're going to inform people about something, please tell the whole story rather than picking words that makes the content look different. That's how they got people sued for 301. (see my comment above) And please look at this. I agree that 301 is problematic, but the way it's used is more problematic than the article itself. Plus if you don't want any discussions here that doesn't help the article (As you suggested in the following section), please stop starting new ones. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I intentionally missed it out for brevity. I guess we should be thankful that thought-crime isn't officially on the statute-books in Turkey. It is there unofficially: a Turkish author was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) under article 301 for words spoken by a fictional character in one of her books. And, btw, I do know that in Britain recently a woman was actually convicted of a terrorist offense just for creating a work of fiction. But that is off-topic, see my other comment below. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you forgot add the 4th line. Probably unintentionally. So let me complete it: 4) Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime. Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly are you saying? France has a same kind of law. Heard they'll change the "Turkishness" in the article to "Turkish nation".--Doktor Gonzo 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't recall anyone in France being prosecuted for saying that the Armenian genocide happened! This discussion is about Turkish laws being used in relation to Turkey's state-level denial of the Armenian genocide, it is not a discussion about worldwide laws in general and their misuse. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me help you a bit. [7]. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't recall anyone in France being prosecuted for saying that the Armenian genocide happened! This discussion is about Turkish laws being used in relation to Turkey's state-level denial of the Armenian genocide, it is not a discussion about worldwide laws in general and their misuse. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to return this talk page to its proper purpose!
Its purpose should be to improve Wikipedia's "Armenian Genocide" article. Its purpose is not to provide a forum for genocide deniers or for those who wish to argue against those deniers. But that currently seems to be its main purpose, with the result that it had been turned into a never-ending battleground against genocide denialists. I have just erased two recent sections of this talk page because they were off-topic in that they were not relevant to improving the article. It seems to me that we have lost sight of what the actual function of the article should be – its function should be to inform an uninformed reader about the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopaedic way. Let's get back to making editorial suggestions aimed at improving the actual article, and cease trying to win pointless victories over genocide denialists! Meowy 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm surprised no-one has felt the need to comment on my above words. However, I have just erased two more sections on this talk page, both of which were added after my above comment. One was titled "Why Armenia do not open his historical archives", the other, "Demands by the Armenian parliment" - neither of their content had any relation to what talk page content should contain: discussion on and suggestions about the article's content. In an article's talk page that is on a non-controversial subject, or that has very little activity, such postings can be overlooked (and in some cases even be enjoyed). However, this talk page now runs to an immense 18 archives - most of which is unreadable and has very little directly to do with the subject of this "Armenian genocide" entry in wikipedia. I am going to continue to erase off-topic discussions and off-topic material under wikipedia's talk-page content guidelines. Meowy 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am re-adding the "demands by the armenian parliment" section. User:White Cat was actually suggesting something about article. If you erased it because of my comment, I'm sorry that we don't share the same kind of sense of humour. Plus, why would anyone comment about your words, it says on the top of the article that the talk page should be about the article anyways. It even warns us about trolls. It says that they're baaaad. and we shouldn't feed them. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have erased it again. It is you who are behaving like a troll. This talk page is not a discussion forum - there are plenty of other locations on the internet to indulge in those pastimes. In what context do you imagine the erased section could be useful in improving the content of the article? There was no context, in my opinion, nor was any given or suggested by any of the contributors of that section. So it was off-topic. Not that a nationalistic rant in Hurriyet would ever be fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. (And the Armenian parliament has made no such demands, btw.) Meowy 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Chill out dude! Nobody called you a troll. I just wanted to say that it's already stated on the top of the talk page that blatant trolling shouldn't be replied. Last time I re-added the part because User:White Cat, indeed, was suggesting something; ("This is the info on current news I think should be incorporated to this article. -- Cat chi? 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)") But such quarreling really wears me so I'm not going to bother readding it. Hope you kittens can get along. I just checked the news by the way, it's not that Armenian parliament had issued a decleration of demands or something, but the newspaper simply summed up the individual statements are by some members of the parliament (namely Armen Rustamyan, Kiro Manoyan and Ara Papyan) Kerem Özcan (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why I removed it - the "information" was clearly never going to be suitable for inclusion in the entry, so why fill yet more lines of this talk page with a pointless discussion about it. You use of words did suggest to me you were calling me a troll, but I will accept that you actually were not. Meowy 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Chill out dude! Nobody called you a troll. I just wanted to say that it's already stated on the top of the talk page that blatant trolling shouldn't be replied. Last time I re-added the part because User:White Cat, indeed, was suggesting something; ("This is the info on current news I think should be incorporated to this article. -- Cat chi? 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)") But such quarreling really wears me so I'm not going to bother readding it. Hope you kittens can get along. I just checked the news by the way, it's not that Armenian parliament had issued a decleration of demands or something, but the newspaper simply summed up the individual statements are by some members of the parliament (namely Armen Rustamyan, Kiro Manoyan and Ara Papyan) Kerem Özcan (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm wondering who's going to tell WhiteCat that Turkish sources can not be neutral on any articles releted to Armenia. He has been told this by three different admins on the other article, but is yet to understand that. And I still consider his deletion of Armenian Genocide memorial images from commons as an insult and a personal attack. Perhaps he can AFD this article as well. VartanM (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- VartanM, are Dadrian and Balakian, and several other references to Armenian authors used in this article neutral? Atabek (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- He has used every trick in the book in the past to harm this article.User:Fadix/Evidence.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is more to it then the 2005 VartanM (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've re-inserted the most recenty deleted image, the reason given for its removal was clearly not valid. It seems that some editors have found a new tool to attack articles they don't like: removing images through the use of obscure aspects of copyright law - but in this case, fortunately, that particular law was not on their side. Meowy 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is more to it then the 2005 VartanM (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Some suggestions, I hope constructive ones.
A lot of the article is very badly written. I think this is mostly because the article has been written as a result of lots of editors having little victories over other editors, but with everyone forgetting to have an overall look at what has been produced. After reading through the whole article I have the following comments to make.
The whole first section is an unwieldy read – there is nothing much factually wrong with it, but it is written in a messy way. However, the "Under the pretext of disloyalty, the Ottoman government charged that Armenians were siding with the Russian Empire and stipulated that the deportations were born out of the necessity to preserve national security" statement is so important it needs a source, plus an explanation about the context in which it was said.
"The general date given to the beginning of the genocide is 24 April 1915". The word "general" implies a non-specific date, yet a specific date is given! Probably the editor wanted to say "the date generally given". Something should be said of the fact that it is a symbolic date.
"The majority of the survivors and their descendants are what now comprise the bulk of the Armenian Diaspora" - I think this is a false statement. I think, currently the majority of the Armenian diaspora are emigrants from the Armenian Republic. Maybe it would be better to write that the majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the aftermath of the Armenian genocide.
All of the "Prelude" sections (Life under Ottoman rule; Reform implementation; Hamidian Massacres) are far to long, especially since they all have individual entries. Some extensive pruning is required.
The "The Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917" section. There is no place here for such irrelevant detail as the tactical details of the Battle of Sarikamish, all that is really required is a two-sentence summary. "Van Resistance, April 20" should be changed to something more encompassing, such as "Events at Van". "Rounding of Armenian notables, April 24" – should be "rounding-up" of course, but should, I suggest, be changed to "Arrest and deportation of Armenian notables". The information on the Dardanelles' campaign is mostly irrelevant details – a sentence or two summary is all that is required. "Legislation, May 29" - change it to "The Temporary Law of Deportation (The "Tehcir" law)" The whole of the next paragraph is very confusing and needs to be rewritten.
"Process and camps of deportation" – change it to "The deportation and extermination process". Considerably more detail is required here. Additions needed include the dates that Armenians were deported from such and such towns, eyewitness accounts, where there were immediate massacres of the deportees, and where the camps along the routes were located. This section should actually comprise the bulk of the whole article.
"Foreign corroboration and reaction" This section is way too long! I guess it has got to its current size as a result of arguments against genocide denialists played out on this talk page. However, the purpose of this article is not to be an argument against denialists, its purpose is to give a reader a concise, informative, encyclopaedic account of the Armenian genocide.
There needs to be a new sub-section called "The Aftermath". The "tribunals", "trials", and "assasinations" sections could all be placed in here. Another part of the "Aftermath" could include a mention of the continuing significance of the genocide in the lives of current Armenians, artistic responses to the event, etc.
"Influence of the Armenian Genocide on Adolf Hitler" – I can see no point in having this section. In what way did Adolf Hitler’s knowledge of the Armenian genocide influence his actions? And why should such actions, if they did exist, have any relevance to an article about the Armenian genocide? If they did exist, then they should be detailed in an entry for Hitler, or for WW2!
"ICTJ View" - I can see no point in having this small separate section. A brief mention elsewhere in the article would suffice.
"Academic views" – Serious questions need to be asked about the purpose of this section. Much of what is here would be better placed in the Denial of the Armenian genocide article. If the rest is to be kept, then the sub-section title should be changed to "The study of the Armenian genocide".
"The Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" - Another way-too-long section. Most of this should also be in the Denial of the Armenian genocide entry, and a brief summary should be here. Things that are missing from this section include an account of the immediate-post WW1 response by the Turkish Republic to the survivors of the genocide.
Meowy 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Many good suggestions (I particularly like your last suggestion - moving much of the - current and recent - Turkish Republic position into the "denial" article and adding info on the views of Turks/Turkish government in the period imediatly after the Genocide) - however I do not agree with all of your proposed deletes or reductions. Becuase of the great deal of Turkish States sponsored denial propoganda and obstrufication it is most important to include such views that are contained in the "Foreign coorboration" section. Likewise Hitler's comments - also disputed by Genocide deniers - are relevant to the history of the Armenian Genocide as well as to genocides in general - with particular relevance to (the often not fully accepted/remembered) Armenian Genocide again due to official Turkish Government and government sponsored denials. The point that Hitler makes - that the Genocide was undertaken, was completed succesfully, and yet the perpetrators went unpunished - even in losing the war - is a powerful message that reinforces the concept of "we much never forget" and that we must never allow the deniers to prevail - because clearly the successes of the Ottoman Turkish Genocide against the Armenians paved the way for the Holocaust of Jews and other undesireables in WWII. Likewise I find that the ICTJ ruling is highly relevant and necessary - including the history surrounding such a ruling - one that Turkish representatives of TARC pushed for and declared they would abide by - but when the ruling went totally against them they disbanded TARC and chose to forget about the whole thing. And while I agree that too much emphasis has perhaps been placed on background events/history and not enough on the actual undertaking of the Genocide itself - again the reason for the need fo such background (if even I agree that it is over emphasized) is that to many people the Armenian Genocide is unknown history - thus it requires contextialization. And in fact I have long argued for greater presentation of such as one cannot truly understand these events - particularly the "whys" and many find such barbarity and premeditation hard to accept - when they are unfamiliar with the relevant history of the Armenian (and Christion minority) experience (and persecution) in the later period of the Ottoman Empire - as well as related issues in regards to the crumbling Empire (including persecutions of former Turkish overlords and the refugee situation and the intelectual backlash among Turkic intellectuals of these regions and their influence on Ottoman Turkish attitudes), growing ethnic/national conciensce among all groups, the rise of the radical Young Turk revolutionary movement (and its transformation and eventual move toward predation upon the minorities) and relations with Armenian progressive parties, the Hamadian massacres and (social and economic) factors adding to the increasing resentment of Armenians and other Christians among the ruling Ottoman elite and by the Turkish "nation" in general...etc etc...So yeah - these factors are very important and could use much better explanation and presentation - along with - of course - greater details concerning the persecution of the Genocide throughout Anatolia. --THOTH (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of the article isn't to counter "Turkish States sponsored denial propaganda" – its purpose should be to give as clear and as concise as possible account of the Armenian genocide. I think that most of the current failings in the article have come about because of that misconception.
- Contextualisation can often be best attained through hyperlinks to the relevant related articles where those articles exist. In such cases all that is needed in this article is a brief mention of what the earlier events are, and why they are related. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it’s individual articles are not meant to be textbooks.
- Regarding the comments allegedly made by Hitler. I would think that unless someone can indicate a source which says that Hitler embarked on such-and-such a policy largely or solely because of lessons he learned or opinions he held as a result of the Armenian genocide then mention of that alleged statement would appear to be off-topic here. But it could be mentioned in the denial of the Armenian genocide article because, as you say, material aimed at discrediting the alleged statement can be found in some of the works produced with the aim of denying the fact of the Armenian genocide. The fact that almost all of the perpetrators went unpunished, and that the Armenian genocide was "successful" can be told in the proposed Aftermath section. Meowy 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really so ignorant of Hitler's legacy (and do you really so fail to understand the direct connection) to make such a vacuous statement? And you seem to be reading alot into my statement. Absolutley I believe the article should do the best possible job presenting the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopedic way and understand that this has some limitations. However, due to the fact that many are unfamiliar with the relevant facts surounding these events and have no context to place them into - unlike the Holocaust - an otherwise similar event (and the active denial certainly plays a part in promoting this ignorance) - this entails that greater situational and explanative detail is needed in the article then otherwise would be necessary for events that are more readily and popularly known. At least this is how I see it.--THOTH (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What you or I believe "Hitler's legacy" to be is of no relevance to this article. Unless you, or some other editor, can cite sources that say Hitler embarked on such-and-such a policy or action largely or solely because of lessons he learned or opinions he held as a result of the Armenian genocide, then I can't see any reason to include in the article something allegendly said by Hitler about the Armenian genocide. I disagree with your apparent assertion that articles on subjects that everyone knows about should be written differently from articles on subjects that few people know about. If people already know about a subject, they generally don't need to consult Wikipedia about that subject! Meowy 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really so ignorant of Hitler's legacy (and do you really so fail to understand the direct connection) to make such a vacuous statement? And you seem to be reading alot into my statement. Absolutley I believe the article should do the best possible job presenting the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopedic way and understand that this has some limitations. However, due to the fact that many are unfamiliar with the relevant facts surounding these events and have no context to place them into - unlike the Holocaust - an otherwise similar event (and the active denial certainly plays a part in promoting this ignorance) - this entails that greater situational and explanative detail is needed in the article then otherwise would be necessary for events that are more readily and popularly known. At least this is how I see it.--THOTH (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of the article isn't to counter "Turkish States sponsored denial propaganda" – its purpose should be to give as clear and as concise as possible account of the Armenian genocide. I think that most of the current failings in the article have come about because of that misconception.
- In regards to Hitler - I seem to recall that the quote from his speech in 1939 invoking the (lack of) memory concerning the Armenian Genocide before ordering his units into Poland to ethnically cleanse it in the name of German Lebensraum figures quite prominantly on a wall of the Holocaust Museaum in Washington DC - perhaps they have misunderstood the quote eh? --THOTH (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Samantha Powers is a scholar who has achieved some renown for both her writings on comparative genocide as well as due to her legal battle with the prominent Holocaust denier David Irving. In her book A Problem for Hell: America and the Age of Genocide she explains the connections between Hitler, the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, Raphael Lemkin and the Trial of Soghomon Tehliran for the murder of Talaat which occurred in Berlin Germany in 1921 – a sensationalized event that received great publicity and press coverage occurring only a few short years after WWI bringing up questions of German complicity in additional war crimes and such…and she introduces the fact that both Hitler and Lemkin were obviously well aware of these events.
- Raphael Lemkin is of course the inventor of the word genocide and the chief proponent of passing the International Genocide convention for the specific purpose of preventing such in the future by establishing genocide as a legal crime so that perpetrators of such – like the CUP/Ottoman Turks could not be assured of immunity and that those contemplating such – like Hitler – would have reason to think twice before undertaking such actions. Lemkin had to flee Poland subsequent to Hitler’s invasion and cleansing of such and thus had an innate understanding of what was at stake. In her book Power writes:
- “Lemkin drafted a paper that drew attention to both Hitler’s ascent and to the Ottoman slaughter of the Armenians, a crime that most Europeans either had ignored or filed away as an “Eastern” phenomenon. If it happened once, the young lawyer urged, it would happen again. If it happened there, he argued, it could happen here. If the international community ever hoped to prevent mass slaughter of the kind the Armenians had suffered, he insisted, the world’s states would have to unite in a campaign to ban the practice. With that in mind, Lemkin had prepared a law that would prohibit the destruction of nations, races, and religious groups. … The attempt to wipe out national, ethnic, or religious groups like the Armenians would become an international crime that could be punished anywhere, like slavery and piracy. The threat of punishment, Lemkin argued, would yield a change in practice.”
- She immediately follows this text by indicating that Lemkin wasn’t the only European who had learned from these events (the Armenian Genocide):
- “…in August of 1939, Hitler met with his military chiefs and delivered a notorious tutorial on a central lesson of the recent past: Victors write the history books. He declared: “It was knowingly and lightheartedly that Genghis Khan sent thousands of women and children to their deaths. History sees in him only the founder of a state. . . . The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically. It is by this means that we shall obtain the vital living space (Lebensraum) that we need. Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?”
- Thus we clearly here have at least one instance of a major recognized comparative genocide scholar acknowledging and making the specific point concerning Hitler’s Armenian Genocide statement – that his awareness of the event – and the lack of punishment for such (whose lack of punishment has also allowed the ability for its continued denial by the perpetrators) directly contributed to his decision making regarding the fate of the Jews and other undesirables of WWII. This is an incredible connection that needs to be acknowledged and highlighted and it is a significant fact surrounding the Armenian Genocide which absolutely must be presented here. I find it absolutely incredulous that anyone claiming to be aware of and understand these events (who is without some specific counter political agenda) would think differently about this issue.--THOTH (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- On October 19, 2003 - Belinda Cooper - senior fellow at the World Policy Institute wrote: "The 20th century opened with an event that has been considered the template for the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews: the deportation and murder of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. Yet while the Holocaust conjures up a host of images in our minds, we have no similar familiarity with the Armenian murders (which most serious observers agree fit the definition of genocide) nor the even less-known massacres of Armenians in the 1890's and in 1909." And i am sure I can find more scholars and others who hold this view. I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the Armenian Genocide was a direct template for the Holocaust in the mind of Hitler and his close associates - many of whom can be shown to have had direct ties to German involvement in the Ottoman Empire during WWII. And I'm sure you are familiar with some of the other documented quotes of Hitler's regarding the Ottoman Turkish sucessful anihilation of the Armenians and his perceptive and relevant views(to future Holcaust thinking)....--THOTH (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You still have not given any compelling reason to include that so-called "Hitler statement". It has been argued that the statement itself is a complete invention, and what is certain is that no original document exists recording those words. The fact that Lemkin used the example of the Armenian genocide towards his coining of the term "genocide" and the example the Armenian genocide gave towards subsequent genocides could be included in a separate subsection of the Aftermath section. There is no need to tarnish those facts with the insertion of a quote that is almost certainly a fake and that has been used in the crudest and most childish type of PR propaganda. Meowy 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- On October 19, 2003 - Belinda Cooper - senior fellow at the World Policy Institute wrote: "The 20th century opened with an event that has been considered the template for the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews: the deportation and murder of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. Yet while the Holocaust conjures up a host of images in our minds, we have no similar familiarity with the Armenian murders (which most serious observers agree fit the definition of genocide) nor the even less-known massacres of Armenians in the 1890's and in 1909." And i am sure I can find more scholars and others who hold this view. I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the Armenian Genocide was a direct template for the Holocaust in the mind of Hitler and his close associates - many of whom can be shown to have had direct ties to German involvement in the Ottoman Empire during WWII. And I'm sure you are familiar with some of the other documented quotes of Hitler's regarding the Ottoman Turkish sucessful anihilation of the Armenians and his perceptive and relevant views(to future Holcaust thinking)....--THOTH (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have made the section and subsection heading changes I suggested in the above, and have abridged the sentences that mentioned the Sarikamish and Gallipoli campaigns. Meowy 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A now for something completely different
My Suggestion:
Armenian Events in Ottoman 1915-1918. Genocide word is an political allagetion of one side. see Genocide article. it is on based UN rules. it is an allegation about a government. it s about Ottoman government in this article. but there arent any document about killing command. many people died different reasons. see the Turkey allegations an docs. numbers of die about 400.000 and 500.000 people during the WWI. and reason of most of die is illness. accepted one is the attacking by highwayman against the armenians. the numbers about this issue are about max 20.000. alsa there are attacks against the Ottoman citizens by Armenian highwayman. it is about the 500.000. names are listed in docs name by name. but there is no governmental and esc. commands about attack or killing. becaouse of these different allagations we must do rules that is under below article. and this article about the rules of WP:EXTREMIST.--Qwl (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.
AND please stop the erase my allegations. nobody can not hide the true. nobody try to seem poor Armenians or Ottoman/others are killers. see rule that below --Qwl (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your last sentence is amusing. VartanM (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
may other suggestion:
1915-1918 Civil War in Ottoman --Qwl (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Look I don't mean to be rude, but you're wasting you're time here. You are not gonna be able to delete or rename this article. I'm sure there are a lot of Turkish articles that could use some expending. VartanM (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why I can not change the name of article? What s your reason according to Principles, Policies and guidelines in Wikipedia? i can change it according to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change . you can revert but you must show a reason according to the rules?.
and now. Why i can not change? what s your reason about my two suggestions? i want to discuss your reasons about my two suggestions.--Qwl (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, wikipedia has a policy against weasel words. And calling the extermination of an ethnic group "Armenian Events in Ottoman 1915-1918" would definitely be weaseling out of calling it what it is. Also, you cannot change the name without establishing a consensus that the article name should be changed.The Myotis (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
this is poin of a view. also we have Armenian word in this article. please see here [8] to see the consensus way. i can change it.
- here is the new suggestions..
- 1. 1915-1918 Civil War in Ottoman
- 2. Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918
- 3. Muslims and Armenians Citizens Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918
- 4. Muslims and Armenians Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918
- 5.Muslim-Armenian Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918
I wrote muslims. because Ottoman divides their citizens as muslims, armenians, greek, jewish, protestan...
--Qwl (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Demands by the Armenian parliament
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Discussion was moved to Talk:Armenian-Turkish relations#Demands by the Armenian parliament -- Cat chi? 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
one of the rules against this article
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 help your ideas.--Qwl (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are on about. Meowy 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you planning on creating a POV fork? Because this is clearly the main article. The Myotis (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
clear? its in your opinion. we must talk about it. i think it s not clear.--Qwl (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Armenian Deportations Do Not Constitute Genocide
The International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague has concluded that deportations alone do not constitute genocide (see case Vidoje Blagojevic apeal, Srebrenica Genocide). Therefore, the deportations of 2 million Armenians do not constitute genocide. What the U.S. Congress (political institution) says is irrelevant, because final say on what constitutes genocide rests with the International Criminal Tribunal. LeeCorrie (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relocations never constituted a genocide, you are right. But Armenian genocide DOES: [[9]] that's the verdict of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland of 12 December 2007 in the case of Doğu Perinçek. But you will surely wait for the verdict from Strasbourg. Be patient. It will be very interesting as it might be applied to all signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights including Turkey... Apocolocynthosis (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deportation alone was not the only thing that was happening. As noted in the article, deportees were deprived of food, water, and shelter, were attacked and massacred by thier own guards with bayonets, axes and clubs, were left unprotected when bandits attacked. And this was only part of the extermination process...lets not forget those killed by firing squad outside villages, those arrested and hung en masse, those driven into rivers to drown, those crowded into buildings that were then set on fire, and those who were piled inside caves and asphyxiated using a fire built at the entrance. The Myotis (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where is a list of the names of 1 million of Armenians you allege died? Please forward me a list with their names and other personal information and I will believe your story. Until then, this is all a politically motivated speculation against the Turkey. LeeCorrie (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where is a list of the names of 1 million of Armenians you allege died - Turks were not as good as the Nazis in terms of keeping records. Chaldean (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Until then, this is all a politically motivated speculation against the Turkey - I am sure that you don't have not a single Darfur genocide victim name, is that genocide "politically motivated speculation" against Sudan? Chaldean (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The mainstream historical opinion is that hundreds of thousands died; only Armenia claims the deaths reached 1.5 million. A list of those died does not exist; moreover, if files existed, the Ottoman Empire would have destroyed them. The death count can be reasonably inferred based on the death marches, mass drownings, mass graves, etc. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The mainstream historical opinion is that between 1.2 to 1.5 million Armenians died. Some Armenians claim 2.5 million. Meowy 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- @LeeCorrie, you are switching too fast. First you are talking about legal issues & tribunals. Apparently that was too much already.- And now figures. Well, 8.000 victims should be enough to constitute a genocide (--> Srebrenica). No need to show a list of 1m or 2m. Apocolocynthosis (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The names of all Jews, Roma, and other peoples killed by the Nazis are not known either. But the documentation that is left is extremely convincing. Other documentations that were discovered in past 3 decades, especially those regarding the massacre of physically disabled people, prove the crimes of the Nazis and categorize the Holocaust as a genocide. That also goes to the Armenian genocide. Although it was not as heavy as the European Holocaust, it was still the first systematic genocide of a minority group, and the historical records are convincing! The European Holocaust is not the standard for a genocide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.128.9 (talk • contribs) 19:18, January 6, 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, the Nazis killed physically disabled and mentally retarded etc., because of Nazi eugenics (look at the section where Hitler talks about Sparta). So it's not like they did it because of a specific genocide plan or something like that, it's about their Social Darwinist beliefs. I'm not so sure if killing mentally retarded counts as a genocide. We're not exactly talking about a valid ethnic group here (as sarcastic as that sounds). Of course, killing Romani people, Jews, etc. is genocide because it amounts to destroying an ethnic group. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- B-Class Armenian articles
- Unknown-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- B-Class Turkey articles
- High-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- Unassessed Discrimination articles
- Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Unassessed Disaster management articles
- Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
- Unassessed history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Old requests for peer review