Talk:Armenian genocide

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Armenian genocide ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political issues on the Arguments page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

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: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Resources Fadix Analysis

Genocide photo of children

the source ("Wallstein Verlag") tells that it has no date. So it can taken from any other period. It's not verifiable. And if Wegner did take this photo, he would surely know when he took the photo's. And why is this photo unknown to ANI (see:http://www.armenian-genocide.org/photo_wegner.html)
These are all signs wikipedia is using a fake-photo.
If wikipedia is serious, it doesn't accept photo's with such dubious matters (unknown date). +when I wrote this, I read below in screen: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.... So wikipedia tells this about verifiability, and then uses photo's with dubious matters.Chonanh 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

references to concentration camps

I want to verify this matter:
Process and camps of deportation
Others are said to have been used only as temporary mass burial zones—such as Radjo, Katma, and Azaz—that were closed in Fall 1915.[22] Some authors also maintain that the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ra's al-'Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days.[22]

• ^ a b c d e (French) Kotek, Joël and Pierre Rigoulot. Le Siècle des camps: Détention, concentration, extermination: cent ans de mal radica. JC Lattes, 2000 ISBN 2-7096-1884-2

----- On which pages we can find this about:

• It is believed that twenty-five major concentration camps existed under the command of Şükrü Kaya, one of the right hands of Talat Pasha.[22]
• As with Jewish kapos in the concentration camps, the majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.[22]

(This book has 805 pages.) Without pages mentioned this nazi-connection can not be verified.Chonanh 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claim!

There is a reference added with [[1]] to the sentence "what led to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian community was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki". I would like the user User:Fedayee give the whole paragraf from where the refernce is aquired. Also User:Fedayee has to prove that this sentence is not a secondary citation or the authors own perception. Any citation that is not based on primary sources can not be used. --OttomanReference 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of claim is this? An article based on only primary sources is called original research, you do prefer writting original research, but there is no place for that here. Fedayee contribution is nothing that special, and as you are aware of, I have already posted from the Ottoman Gazette the conclusions of the trials, and it included the role of the special organization. A role, which I have provided an ample of primary and secondary source in the talk page. I hope you won't start again. Fad (ix) 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the reference I added details how the Committee of Union and Progress came to power in Turkey. It doesn't exactly quote the sentence. Besides, isn't it common knowledge that the members of that party were the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide? Pretty lame to ask for a reference for such a sentence IMO. I'll try to find one that actually says Talaat and his clique committed the destruction of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire Mr. Lawyer. - Fedayee 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

" User:Fedayee: It doesn't exactly quote the sentence." It is not a good policy do add a quote that does not even cover the period. I want to say; I admire your efforts to improve the article. Did you not get tired of "unsupported claims." It is possible to find many opposing sources on whole section "Planned attacks on deportees by the CUP". The citation (collection in this case) has to prove "without any suspicion" of the responsibilities. A citation of “I belive so” is really not a citation. There is a difference between accusation and establishmet of a crime. Thanks. --OttomanReference 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow what you are saying but i'll remove that citation I added assuming that you want something that quotes it exactly. But is it not clear enough that the Three pashas were responsible for the AG? - Fedayee 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could any one imagine any objection if a claim was made in a Holocaust article that the Nazis (and even specifically which ones) were responsible for the Holocaust? Why should it be any different here? There is more then sufficient evidence in all the scholarly literature and from first hand accounts to establish the rol eof both the CUP (Central Commitee, Party Secretaries, other operatives throughout the organizations) and as well the Special Organization (and specifically its proinciples - Shakir and Nazim and a host of others) in planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide. Any objection to such being stated is GENOCIDE DENIAL and can be characterized as a strawman argument at best. This is denial by useless and distracting (and unsupportable) nitpicking and there is no place for such here. --THOTH 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking here about a planned ethnic and religious cleansing, with German diplomatic accounts. If we replace Armenians with Bosnians or Hutu's and Turkey or Anatolia with the Serbian controlled part of Bosnia-Hercegovina or Rwanda, nobody would even consider naming it otherwise. Ethnic/religious cleansing equals genocide. How else can the Turkish government justify killing women, children and the elderly all over Anatolia, eventhough only in the eastern provinces some Armenians ended up standing on the Russian side of the fights, but not for ethnic cleansing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.198.167 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Govermantal site for so-called genocide

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm Did anyone read it? Could we put link to this page. This is offical page. where are the other links ???? They all removed. This is the proof that Armenians are doing propaganda here!!! [user:onur_prg]

Are you serious? This is just another proof of how the Turkish gouvernement tries to deny the genocide ever happened. I didn't even had to read a whole page to see that this is just incredible Turkish propaganda, and that most parts don't make sense. You are right about placing in the article though. I think it should be placed in the part about the position of the Turkish gouvernement.High King of the Noldor 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No we cannot that site is straight from Turkeys government what the hell do you expect. Nareklm 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

yes under position of Turkish goverment lets put it...

Here is a quote from the linked article that supposedly "disproves" the Armenian Genocide - "The so-called Armenian genocide is a totally made-up, unreal and unfounded scenario of imagination based on enmity towards Turks and lacking any valid instruments, proofs or any legal basis." Yeah - no proofs, entirely made up - imagined just to get at the Turks - of course - how is it that we have all been fooled for so long? --THOTH 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of discussion moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Could you also take a look at to the Wikipedia's own articles before making a decision what happened during World War I, as far as Armenian-Turkish relations concerned.

Armenian battalions, French-Armenian Agreement (1916), French Armenian Legion, Armenian volunteer units, Battle of Bitlis and Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire TIASB 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple question, what has happened and Ottomans decided to issue the famous Tehcir Law "Provisional Law of Relocations" on May 1915 for her Armenian citizens after living together quite a long time in peace? Should we start studying the reason "why" among TIASB's above given links for wikipedia articles or anyone will clarify the subject for us to save time. One more link worth review Van Resistance - mind the dates! Sey01 17:44, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

The referenced artcles above are all entirely un-schoalraly and unworthy of wikipedia and entirely worthless as references here. I do agree however that a better discussion of the reasons why the Armenian genocide was undertaken by the CUP/Ottoman Empire is in order. --THOTH 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That all depends on the definition of the word genocide. Now genocide itself means " the deliberate killing of a large group of people". That is true, by the way, and it is impossible to deny that millions of Armenian Turks were killed by The Ottoman Turks, and whether the purpose to this act was based on racism or not, it is therefore undeniably true that it was an act of genocide. Again, first consider what the word genocide means to you. Odst 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So what about your source. I also think armenian source are full of imagination. Please put this govermantal page into the artical.

First, please sign all of your posts. Second, what you think of the 'Armenian' (by which I assume you mean American and German) sources and statistics is irrelevant, they are acceptable by wikipedia standards.The Myotis 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic views on the issue

Why is Pamuk included in there? He is a novelist not a historian. The section should be better titled "views by some Turks" as it is and seems to be written to the only highlight Turks who have one way or the other talked about the events in a way more symphatetic to the Armenian position. I suggest that we take both Pamuk and Dink out - neither of them are historians therefore they are not "academicians"; it conflicts with the section title. It is primarily stuff like this that makes the article look bad and constantly attract edit-wars.

On a similar note, please do not rate this article higher than B for any project. We went over this two months ago. If it is not even GA it doesn't make sense that it is rated as A, now does it? It just looks childish and like a pissing contest really :) The same logic and standard applies to all the articles in Wikipedia therefore there is no need to get offended or anything - I would say the same for all of them. Baristarim 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The usual

This comment might go unheeded by some, but please do not post comments along the lines "this is all a balooney" or "Turks are butchers" - please try to concentrate on how it effects the article. eg "I think that in the X paragraph in Y section it should be included that Z, A, B call this a balloney for Q, W reasons", or "maybe we should reorganize C and D sections to concentrate on the fact Turks are butchers per P, R and S" :) Obviously I am exaggerating to make a point, but let's at least try to keep a correlation between the talk page and the article, no matter what viewpoint we are presenting. People are free to speak their minds of course, but it is just an advice... Baristarim 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rest of the discussion moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Millet system in "the Status of Ottoman Armenians" sub-article

The sentence goes like this: "Under the millet system of Ottoman law, Armenians as dhimmis or recognized non-Muslims (along with Greeks, Jews and other ethnic and religious groups) were subject to laws that effectively designated them as second-class citizens, with fewer legal rights than Muslims." It is actually a biased sentence and the biased part is the "designated them as second-class citizens, with fewer legal rights than Muslims". This claim can be disproved by reading the Wikipedia article Millet (Ottoman Empire), or attempting a little research on the Internet. As the Wiki article suggests: "The millet concept has a similarity to autonomous territories that has long been the European norm for dealing with minority groups." And it does not say anything about making other "millets" second-class citizens. In fact, "Aegean Greeks were granted wide commercial rights and also developed a fleet that quickly became the Empire's maritime weapon. In fact, some Greek citizens prospered to such a degree that they eventually opposed the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831, afraid to lose their privileged position in the imperial capital." Well, the article is not high-quality and has little information about the Armenians. But, again, if you write something, you have to have proof (correct proof) to say that it's correct. Unfortunately, the biased part of the sentence at the beginning of this sub-article does not have proof.. Kalkim 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant "correct" proof. I'm really suspicious about the reliability of the proof (namely, reference number 5), especially about the part: "their testimony in Islamic courts was inadmissible against Muslims" and "they were heavily taxed". Were they taxed more heavily than Ottoman Muslims? I doubt that. My current knowledge contradicts with these information. I will soon try to provide material that is not just based on one book on an extensive and serious subject to disprove the claim that Armenians were treated as second-class subjects. And I want to add that the reference is a book whose subject is Armenian Genocide. It's really questionable how objective this book can describe the millet system or its effects in the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century or before.

Kalkim 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wordings are POV. A member has made changes, I asked him to discuss them in the talkpage, which he did, and for a reason he didn't finally edited to his proposed change after, even thought I told him I agree with his change. Dig in the talk page if you could find the change he proposed. Regards. Fad (ix) 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, about the taxation, this is actually true though, Armenians were those who were taxed most. Minorities had to pay the military tax, but many other taxes were imposed to them contrary to other minorities, but many Assyrian communities in the East were subjected to the same policies though. Fad (ix) 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I could not find the discussion of the particular member about the millet issue in this talk page or the other: Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments.. Can you be more specific about where I can find it? And the modified sentence stands as "They had separate legal courts, however disputes involving a Muslim fell under the sharia-based laws. Armenians were exempt from serving in the military (and instead forced to pay an exemption tax, the jizya); their testimony in Islamic courts was inadmissible against Muslims; they were not allowed to bear arms, they were heavily taxed, and they were treated overall as second-class subjects." It's still not in NPOV. Although this information has a reference, the reference is a book about the Armenian Genocide, whose objectivity is questionable about the Millet (Ottoman Empire) issue since it's a broad subject. Btw, I'm not sure about the taxation issue. I do not know if the Armenians were those who were taxed the most.However, you may be right and I will to try to check if this particular info is true or not from other sources. Kalkim 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. This is the proposition for change in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_15#Proposals_for_changes Read it, and tell me what you think of. Also, might I suggest you Akçam most recent work. It is pretty much complete and includes the taxation stuff. Regards. Fad (ix) 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the tanzimat essentially make the Ottoman state secular? The jizya was abolished and many social disabilities against religious minorities were removed. Also at the time of the Armenian genocide, the Young Turks were in power, who were secular humanists. I doubt Islam played a big role in the genocide. 71.102.188.162 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why speculate (falsely) when there is plently of scholarly/archival material that covers this.--THOTH 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check http://www.sephardicstudies.org/aa3.html, this page is also given as a reference in The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. This article reflects only one point of view, thus I added a POV tag. --C6H12O6 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very very sorry for my very very late response... Fad, thanks for the link. I read the change proposal. It is well written, and mostly non-biased by FrancescoMazzucotelli. Nevertheless, I have to propose a few more changes to it: current version: "Armenians were barred... they were not allowed to bear weapons." (in the first paragraph) my version: The current version sounds like it's an ethnic thing for the Armenians to be banned from the military. Instead of "Armenians", we should call it "Armenian Millet (Ottoman Empire)", i.e. "Ermeni Milleti, because their bar from the military is not an ethnic matter. Except the Muslim millet, all millets were banned from the military (also there was the devşirme). Also, there is not a single Armenian millet in the Ottoman Empire. There are more than one. Thus, my version of the first paragraph is as follows: "In principle, Armenian millets, like Greeks, Jews, and other Christian communities (millets) across the Middle East were originally subject to a corpus of laws and regulations which gave them a different legal status within the Empire than their Muslim counterparts. Armenian millets were barred from serving in the military, and paid jizya because of that. Their courts were separate from the Muslim millet. However, when there was a dispute between a Muslim and an Armenian, Islamic court was responsible to solve this dispute and their testimony was inadmissible against Muslims." I do not know about the bearing of weapons issue. In the third paragraph, there is the sentence "In 1856, the Hatt-ı Hümayun promised equality for all Ottoman citizens irrespective of their ethnicity and confession...". As I explained above, ethnicity is not an issue in the Ottoman Empire. Instead, there are millets based on the religious sect of a society. Thus, ethnicity should be removed or replaced by millet. Also in the third paragraph, there is another sentence beginning with "The reformist period peaked with the Constitution...which established freedom of belief and equality...". Freedom of belief was present in the Ottoman Empire. All people, living in the Empire, were free to believe in their own religious sects. Therefore, freedom of belief must be removed from the sentence. One last thing to do is to place till 1908 to the end of the sentence (in the fourth paragraph): "This constitution, however, was...over the Empire.". My references for my proposal for changes are especially İlber Ortaylı's two books (which are in Turkish): "The Last Empire: Ottoman Empire, İstanbul, Timaş Press, 2006", and "The Ottoman Peace, İstanbul, Timaş Press, 2007". Except for these above, the proposal is good. I did not have a chance to look at Akçam's recent work. I have nevertheless read some of his works. I strongly suggest you not to base your knowledge only on Akçam's works. You should also read İlber Ortaylı, Halil İnalcık, and Donald Quataert. They are the true masters of Ottoman History. Also, there are some incorrect data in the Wiki article Millet (Ottoman Empire). Also, the article is incomplete. I'll try to improve it ASAP. This time, it won't take too long:)). --Kalkim 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia cite subjective commentary?

“ Although the largest minority present in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians, being Christians, were in effect infidels in the eyes of Muslims, as described by British ethnographer William Ramsay:

"Turkish rule...meant unutterable contempt...The Armenians (and the Greeks) were dogs and pigs...to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet. Conceive the inevitable result of centuries of slavery, of subjection to insult and scorn, centuries in which nothing that belonged to the Armenian, neither his property, his house, his life, his person, nor his family, was sacred or safe from violence—capricious, unprovoked violence—to resist which by violence meant death."

”

I'm not bothered by the content of the article as long as it is based on something that can be considered evidence. And as far as I know, this doesn't include opinion, regardless of the occupation of the person it belongs to. I could easily find an ethnographer or a historian who believes the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't exactly make it true, now does it? JaneDOA 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not think it was being used as evidence (as in an eyewitness account) as much at is an attempt to summarize the generally held view of western society at that time period. Considering how hard it would be to find specific statistics on discrimination from that day and age, I think it is appropriate. Even today it is hard to prove that a certain group is being persecuted. However, if you believe this directly violates Wikipedia policy, it can be moved, removed or replaced.The Myotis 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue if it had at least some factual value, but it seems more like a narrative on William Ramsay's personal feelings about the conditions of the minorities - very touching, but useless in an encyclopedia article. He does have some claims, such as "The Armenians (and the Greeks) were dogs and pigs...to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet.", but however accurate they might be, the sentence is too biased to be in Wikipedia, let alone the fact that it isn't based on anything at all as far as I can tell. So it does violate both the neutrality and the reliability policies. I suggest removal. JaneDOA 06:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jane British ethnographer William Ramsay is a very notable scholar, he even has his own Encyclopedia Britanica entry. This comment is based on the fact that he travelled in turkey for twelve years (in his job as an ethnographer) seeing how the armenians and greeks were treated. But as long as we make clear its his view its is acceptable to use it here. I'm quite sure his discription of the deep south at the same time would be similar, unfortunately this is probably the best source of the level of persicution in turkey at the time. Hypnosadist 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be quoted, what does it bring to the article? A footnote is enough, quoting that much is unecessary. Fad (ix) 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Mountains

The song Holy Mountains isn't so much about the Genocide but more about the Turks building Mititary establishments on a mountain they consider to be Holy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.224.236 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

SOAD guitarist/songwriter Daron Malakian's own words: DM: "The song (Holy Mountains) is about Masis (the Armenian homeland) and Ararat (a mountain in eastern Turkey considered to be the landing point of Noah’s Ark). If you saw the mountains on TV they would be described as mountains in Turkey, and that’s always a knife in an Armenian’s heart because those are Armenian mountains, not Turkish mountains. They were stolen from us. So that song, ‘Holy Mountains,’ is about those mountains and how they were stolen from us. [Also], my little cousin’s name is Masis" If you listen to the lyrics you will understand it is about how sacred Armenian lands were taken from them through bloodshed - so yes of course it is about the Genocide which was the final act in the historical process of the Turks depriving Armenians of their lands (in addition to slaughtering the better part of the Anatolian Armenian population). --THOTH 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Politician Dogu Perincek found guilty in Switzerland of racial discrimination for denying Armenian Genocide

This needs to be referenced in the article. http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/top_news/detail/Turkish_politician_fined_over_genocide_denial.html?siteSect=106&sid=7603245&cKey=1173463623000 --THOTH 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From the page you gave :"The Armenians say Ottoman Turks slaughtered up to 1.8 million Armenians in a planned genocide between 1915 and 1918. Turkey denies the mass killings were genocide, saying the death toll is inflated.".. it is made-up. This shows how swiss people hates Turks.

Wow check this :"Judge Pierre-Henri Winzap accused Perinçek of being "a racist" and "an arrogant provocateur" who was familiar with Swiss law on historical revisionism.".. Why racist?. We love Armenians. We have many Armenians living in Turkey.. We are just talking about history.. Why he became racist? User:onur_prg

First genocide of 20th century

In the second paragraph, we have the following (part of a) sentence:

" ... believe that it was indeed the first genocide of the 20th century ... "

I want to edit it, and change to "... believe that it was indeed a genocide ..." , unless the sources support it, or unless that sentence is a result of consensus. --deniz 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Encyclopædia Britannica:

The first significant genocide of the 20th century was directed against the Armenian residents of Asia Minor by the Turkish government. This deliberate slaughter began on April 24, 1915, under the cover of World War I. April 24 is still commemorated by Armenians around the world as Martyrs' Day. The numbers killed are uncertain. The lowest estimate is 800,000 and the highest more than… (from "Major Modern Genocides")

and:

The greatest single disaster in the history of the Armenians came with the outbreak of World War I (1914–18). In 1915 the Young Turk government resolved to deport the whole Armenian population of about 1,750,000 to Syria and Mesopotamia. It regarded the Turkish Armenians—despite pledges of loyalty by many—as a dangerous foreign element bent on conspiring with the pro-Christian tsarist enemy to upset the Ottoman campaign in the east. In what would later be known as the first genocide of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven from their homes, massacred, or marched until they died. The death toll of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey has been estimated at between 600,000 and 1,500,000 in the years from 1915 to 1923. (See Researcher's Note: Armenian massacres.) Tens of thousands emigrated to Russia, Lebanon, Syria, France, and the United States, and the western part of the historical homeland of the Armenian people was emptied of Armenians. (from "Armenia")

So, I suppose we could add this as a source to the article. Khoikhoi 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not fair to say that, the first genocide of the 20th century was the one of the Herrero's. The Armenian genocide is the first modern case, not the first 20th century. It is unfair for the herreros, as it implies their's isen't one. Fad (ix) 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very curious to know how Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide feel about that of the Herreros. I mean everyone pretty much agrees that the Herreros started a revolt against German occupation in 1904 and that they killed quite a few Germans. Only after this "provocation" did the Germans drive the Herreros en mass off of their lands and eventually round them up into concentration camps...so 60,000 died...most likely disease and starvation played a factor eh? So was it genocide? Can an order be found from the Kaiser telling his troops - "kill them all!" - somehow I don't think so...yet...well...where are they now? While these events certainly occured in the 20th century and (IMO) are acuratly depicted as the first genocide of the 20th century - in fact I see these vents as a continuation of 19th century colonial efforts at using extreme brutality to supress local insurections. The Germans just happened to do a good job of it - to the extreme detriment of the Herrero. What distinguishes this event from the of the Armenians is that the Armenians who were subject to genocide were actually citizens of the nation who perpetrated the killings. Additionally, though I don't discount the losses or wish to play numbers games - the Armenians lost over 1 million and their ancient civilizaton was devestated - and their losses basically eliminated them as a people from their ancestral lands. I'm not sure what percentage loss the Herrero experienced but I think that some portion of theri population remained and remains living in Nambibia afterward and to this day. Thus, in the terminology of Dr Robert Melson - the Armenians suffered the first total domestic genocide of the 20th century. So in this regard (as well as in regards to the nature of the genocie - colonial - as in 19th century - veruses nationalistic (political) - 20th century) - and the characterization of the genocide as "total" (along with only the Jewish Holocaust in modern history) - one can acuratly claim the Armenian Genocide to be the first true genocide of the 20th century. (though this is admittedly a semantics issue) --THOTH 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You never change. All this is irrelevent. Fad (ix) 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you your highness.--THOTH 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Fad (ix) 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian archives..

Check this book : 100 Belgede Ermeni Meselesi [2] The book is new and it gives 100 offical documents which belongs to Russian archives and which proves it was not a genocide. So it means not only ottoman archive but also other countries' archives are supporting us ... I feel sorry for you :) . So you will not again tell me the stories that we changed the ottoman archive, Right?.. Also please don't tell me also that we changed Russian arhive... Also we have documents from Armenian archives.. I will add here later.. --Onur 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny that a book which (supposedly) 'disproves' AG just happens to be written in Turkish. I think that these newly discovered documents would be more believable if they were written in Russian and maybe actually came from Russia. And you don’t expect us to just take your world that it 'disproves’ AG, you haven’t even given us a hint as to what 'evidence' it contains. Oh, and in case you have not heard, documenting a resistance movement does not disprove any western conclusions on the matter.The Myotis 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Funny? Book has copy of each document in it, if know Russion language, you can read it. Documents shows how Armenians killed Turks. How they got armed and helped to Russia and bra bra... I hope they will translate it.. But even they translate it, Will you read it? So why you are asking me this?.. There are many perfect books in english and no body read it. They say it is propaganda. So why you are asking me about the language of the book.. Will you read it.. If you will read it, I can translate for you :).. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.156.165.158 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, we already know that Armenians within the Czar's territory were drafted into the Russian army, and, the two countries being at war, obviously fought killed Ottoman soldiers (which also included Armenians early in the war), and that would definitely explain it's place in the Russian archives. As the Ottoman's policy of extermination became obvious (1915 onwards), one would expect that any fleeing Armenians who came across Russian troops would certainly help them, so any records from that time period can not be used as "disproof". Basically it is telling us something we already know and know to be irrelevant. And I don't think I would trust the translation of an anonymous editor who will not even sign its own posts with its name.The Myotis 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so. because author was very assertive. By the way it is nothing about killed Ottoman soldiers. I am talking about killed civilians. Let me remind you the events: When Russia invaded the Kars, Armenians attacked to Turks (we can say they deleted the Kars ). Then in Mus, Turks heard that Armenians killing their people, and they paniced and attacked to Armenians. In Mus Armenians ascaped to Kars to Russian part. Then Russia attacked to Mus and again mass killing to civilians happened there. Armenians got their revenge there. Ottoman saw that these two race is figthing each other. And in many place ottoman decided to relocation (This protected Armanians' life in many place).. in my prediction, The documents are about that. I haven't read the book but watched the writer at TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs)

I have heard almost claims many before, but have yet to see any irrefutable verification that they happened. Are you telling me this book contains ‘newly discovered’ evidence, or is it just the rehashing of an old story in order to give it more credibility? And I hope that you do not seriously expect me to believe that the deportations were for their own protection. Ottoman soldiers fed the same line to the Armenian civilians they robbed, starved, and marched into the desert.The Myotis 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just I want to ask you question? Why turkish historians and Armenians historians don't argue this face to face in a TV show. In America, they would do it but Armenian side refused it. Anyway this is endless argue.. This is govermantal thing :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

You sound like you don't know it has happened before. The pro-Turkish and pro-Armenian sides have done public television debates on the issue before. PBS had a televised debate between the two sides, the recognition side being represented by Taner Akcam and Peter Balakian, the denial side by Justin McCarthy and Omer Turan. The major consensus of the viewing audience was that the recognition side won. [3] Does that answer your question? - The Myotis 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should they discuss it on a tv show, instead of in scientific journals, magazines and other publications? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about this: MSNBC Aecis, the link is for live vote and It is asking same question. And see 85 % says yes :).. Myotis, I will check your links.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Or perhaps they should hold a wresling match...best 2 out of 3...--THOTH 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, But don't forget we are very good in wrestling, we will beat you definitly :).. Face to face discussions and TV panels, People want these.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink

Hi, these two are not academics, one is a novelist, the other a journalist. Imo they should only be given a passing mention perhaps in reference to article 301, not sections of their own. --A.Garnet 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The first reaction of a Turkish National to the genocide topic is a reaction of instinctive defense. That is the way I felt. I would like to explain how I feel now. Hrant Dink was well respected in Turkey, and I respected his unifying ideology. I hope that the Diaspora does not think that all Turks are anti-Hrant or anti-Armenian. He wrote once that the only way an Armenian could cure him/her self from the hatred against Turks is to come and live side by side with Turks. He considered the hatred a "poison" in the blood and that the diaspora thought this to originate from "poisonous Turkish blood". For that phrase he was found guilt by a Turkish court. Not all citizens of Turkey agree with that decision.

Now, my most recent reaction to this topic is this: if I were an Armenian; I would try to suffer less by erasing from my heart the hatred against Turks. This is what the Crimean Tatars should do and the Jews of Germany as well. And most recently the Bosnians of Srebrenica. A heredited culture of vengance and hatred only consumes its keeper. It is like a fire that burns you from within. So I wish very much to all the Armenians who so much deal with the past to look at today, and the future. I wish one day that the border between the two very similar nations is only symbolic. And I wish that emperial wars will not further divide the two neighbors. Thank you. --Devran77 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I think I discovered an enlightened Turk, could this be? Amjikian 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcastic remarks (especially the ones bundled with (any amount of) rascism). By the way, is your last name really Amjikian? just wondering deniz 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information - my "suffering" as an Armenian has nothign to do with hatred against Turks - I don't hate Turks - I don't hate anyone. My "suffering" as an Armenian has everythign to do with a genocide of my people and my family that is ongoing to this day - as denial is the final stage of genocide - and it is a stage that we are in right now. Now if I was a Turk I would be quite ashamed of my country for continuing this genocide, of causing the current generation of Turks to become accomplice to it...and perhaps I would try to do something - to try to suffer less by erasing this shame from my heart - and fully acknowledge the crimes commited against the Armenians by the anscestors that you protect. Likewise I would say (again in your words - as a Turk) that to erase the ignorance of the past and amnesia of your brain that in fact you try to do a better job remembering and acknowledging the past - and attempting to understand why a people who have been victimized by your ancestors - to the point where they were delibertly slaughtered en mass and driven from their ancient homelands - why such a people might currently be suffering and feel hurt - when you - the perpetrator nation - fail to acknowledge the enormity of the crimes commited against this victim people - and instead smugly advise them to forget about it - yeah just forget about of course - as if we can...unfortunatly (?) we haven't been brainwashed as a people to forget about our past - unlike soem other people who revel in their ignorance and suggest such for others - how convenient....--THOTH 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not advise anyone to forget the past. And I do not understand the degree of aggression that you display, nor the sharpness of your words. I do not feel that I am a perpetrator, and neither do I feel brainwashed. I am only proposing solutions to better the lives of the Armenians in Turkey and the Armenians of Armenina today. I feel that Hrant Dink was a very humanist and wise writer and his thoughts and philosophy should be better studied by all Armenians and Turks. I would feel better if you made some remarks about him or his thoughts on your commentary because this is the topic underwhich we are writing. He always stated that trying to corner the Turkish State via international lobbies only worsens the relations here in Asia Minor. It creates further prejudice in the public opinion, and the populist media does not help the situation either. I will not enter the attriton warfare that you may want me enter. All I do is to come out of the trench, bare naked, in order to suggest solutions for the current situation. If you really want to do good for Armenians, go to Armenia, help dress, feed and educate Armenian kids, and better the economy of that country. Instead of rolling your eyes with resentment, focus them on productive projects with practical outcomes. That is better for us and everyone. I suggest a new topic that is "The social and psychological impacts (trauma?) on today's diaspora". Thank you.--Devran77 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Turks admitting the truth about what Turkish nation did to Armenians is the first step in any reconcilliation. Can you imagine a German preaching to a Jew how he/she should feel about Germans and about the Holocaust? - and oh by the way - stop hating Germans (when most all Germans in this case dismiss the Holocaust as some kind of Jewish propoganda, still blame the Jews for their own misfortune and claim innocence and consider Hitler and his minions as national heros who were only doing their patritic duty to the nation...and so on and so forth). And BTW the topic of this article is not "solutions to better the lives of the Armenians in Turkey and the Armenians in Armenia" it is the Armenian Genocide - so your concern in this regard is out of place here (in addition to otherwise being misguided and misinformed). As for Hrant Dink - yes he was of the opinion that outside efforts to pressure Turkey were not helpful. However, he clearly believed that Turkey and Turks must admit the Armenian Genocide as fact. He felt that the onus was on Turks to come to this realization and express remourse etc without having to be prod to do so. I and other Armenians are all for that - however the reality is that Turkey had 50-60 years after the event where there was little or no pressure from any Armenian Diaspora to admit the truth and I can't seem to recall any statements made on behalf of the nation or educational programs for Turks or what have you that became more accurate and forthcomming concerning these events. In fact it has been just the opposite. What is clear is that pressure is building on Turkey - through efforts of the Armenian Diaspora - for Turkey and Turks to come to terms with their past. Obviously it is already proven that lacking such pressure they will not come around on their own. So in this case Dink was clearly wrong - as much as we can appreciate his sentiments of brotherhood among the Turkish and Armenian peoples. And while some Armenians may hate Turks I think is is innacurate to claim that most do and that "hatred" is putting Turks on the defensive and such. It is also incredibly innacurate to brand Genocide recognition efforts as hatred of Turks or toward Turkey (while the continued denial of the Genocide can clearly be considered a hateful act toward Armenians). The Turkish policies of denial are what is putting Turks and Turkey on the defensive. And until this attitude changes this condition will not change. Turkey and Turks will continue to be - rightly - condemned by the entire world who knows of and understands these events and the travesty of their continued denial. The ball is clearly in Turkey and Turks' court to do what is right, show some maturity as a people, and stop the shameful and hurtful denial of the Armenian Genocide and stop the perpetuation of the genocide by the continued aggressive acts of denial which only makes the Turks of today accomplices to the crimes. So for justice to be served is it incumbent upon the victim of a crime to show mercy on the perpetrator? Or is the onus upon the perpetrator to acknowledge the deeds and seek forgivness?--THOTH 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to address the point i made above? --A.Garnet 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. If Hrant Dink gets a section, then why not a sentence or two on ASALA's murder of nearly 50 Turkish diplomats and their families in the name of genocide recognition? Lima6 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion on this matter --THOTH 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a reason. --A.Garnet 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pamuk recieved the nobel prize for literature - arguably directly in relation to his stance on the Armenian genocide (or at least in regard to freedom of speech - or lack therof - in Turkey in regards to this and related issues). Dink was recently killed by Turkish nationalistic forces directly for his stance regarding Armenian Genocide recognition. He obviously was considered to be a notable voice on this issue and his death is both highly pressworthy and relevant to this issue - (killing because of his outspokeness on this issue...reference above comments by Devran77). Both of these individuals merit the level of treatment they recieve in the article. I find it quite interesting and telling that certain Turks such as yourself might disagree....but the genocide is a mde up propoganda ploy on behalf of Armenians right? yes - let us make it clear where we stand.--THOTH 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insults and accusations aside, neither of them are academics. They are relevant in that they have been associated with the media coverage of the events, but they have not provided any notable academic view on the event as section suggests. They should be contextualised into a more approriate section. Perhaps create a "Recent developments" section. --A.Garnet 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, please remember to comment on the content of a point raised here, not on the contributor who raised the point. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Garnet, i'm surprised that you raise this issue considering that this article is highly biased and chock full of hypocrisy. One can argue that it rivals material produced by the Soviets. lutherian 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the Calvinist's comment, I would like you to take a look at the term academic. An academic is simply a person, typically part of the higher-education community, who has done peer-reviewed research on a topic. A Nobel-prize winner would certainly fit the former category, and debatably the latter. Similar things can probably be said about Dink, he was certainly a well-educated and distinguished person, though I am not certain how much research he was involved in. However, both views on the subject are noteworthy, and I think they deserve inclusion, even if it may be necessary to label them as ‘other notable views’ or move them to a different section.The Myotis 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many journalists that are good researchers, but they are not academics. Myotis, please take a look at academic yourself. An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education Not being an academic does not make Hrant Dink's opinion not notable, as he might have researched the subject very well. The bad thing about journalists is that they are not as academically responsible of what they write as academics, historians. Orhan Pamuk is notable as he is a Nobel prize winner, his quotes are notable too, but his quotes, his opinions should not be presented as facts or as something from the research community (which includes academics, researcher journalists and other researchers). Besides, what Orhan Pamuk said was that 30,000 Kurds and 1million Armenians were killed in these lands. Separately these are not far from the general Turkish view, according to which 37,000+ people died in PKK conflict and many of them were Kurdish, also hundreds of thousands of Armenian died but not as much as 1 million (died-killed might be an issue there). deniz 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to rename the 9th section, it should be 'the position of Turkish people', create a subsection government's position move what was previously under 9th section there. Move Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk subsections under the governments position subsection. Move the first sentence of subsection "10.4 Denial" under section 9 above subsection for government's position. Make 10.4 Denial to a section (might be better to rename it to 'support to the Turkish view in the academic continuity') (delete the now empty 10th section) deniz 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Position of Turkish people" sounds awkward and too generalizing. How do you quantify the "Turkish people"? Do all Turks believe that the genocide did not occur? Of course not; you cannot lump an entire people into a group and claim that the whole of them represent this particular point of view.--MarshallBagramyan 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check my changes, there is no such claim that all Turkish all represent same point of view on this issue deniz 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, it is better that you do not add quotes, we have way too much already, and I will be deleting probably most when I start cleaning the article. Also, it is better you leave Garnet handle the article, as the talk page has megs of discussions and you were not there when this happened, for example your recent edit deal with that, which was contested in the page. Fad (ix) 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is quote = that excerpt of letter?. We can hide it. Did you guys have a discussion about bringing together all Turkish views under one section? I understand your concern, seeing the same discussions over and over again might be pissing off the old editors, sorry if I did that, that was one of my reasons of refraining from adding/removing anything substantial here and similar articles. I know rearranging stuff can also be a very major edit. My edit was a response to A. Garnet's concerns and the comments after that. I think it solves that problem, though it might be creating other problems. deniz 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically yes, that is one example. Because there is more to that letter, there is Israel Charny questioneers, and the followup. This will lead to placing quotes and counterquotes. Also, the allusion to Turkish position to. This brough many conreoversies in the past, as it would be qualified as generalisation. Fad (ix) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make these changes, please feel free to revert any change I made. oops section 10 wasn't empty, it stays though I made rearrangements, moved some text in this section to other sections. I recovered a text that was commented out and moved it to 10th section. Hopefully my suggestions are more clear now deniz 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The title sounds too generalizing - again the impression it makes on me and surely will on readers is that this is the view on the entire Turkish people, not the Turkish people. I'll let some of the editors to weigh in their in opinion on it. --MarshallBagramyan 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think now I get what you mean. Will it be OK if the title is positions(plural) of Turkish people? The text under that includes several views.deniz 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Garnet, when I had created the section on Turkish intellectuals, it was not meant to be to divide them and expend on each ones. If we start doing that with each persons position, we could load the article without end, so I basically agree with you. This articles quality has not improved, to the contrary, it is in a pittiful state and is becoming worst as days pass. Probably after the arbitration case on Armenia and Azerbaijan, I will take the moment to work on it, and you are more than welcome, don't bother Thoth, nothing constructive could come from him. You could start working on the Turkish government position, which needs work, actually, there is nothing much which could not be worked on, so pick whatever you want. And don't bother asking my opinion for now(I have no time right now), with the state of the article, you could not make it worst, of course that is, if Thoth or OttomanReference don't screw it. Fad (ix) 00:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix - I would like to helpfully suggest to you (to do us all a favor) that if you can't control your mental condition (of having to irrationally lash out against, belittle and personally attack any who do not blindly accept your very specific perspective) that you do your best to just try to stay away from and out of the business of other people.--THOTH 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No I won't, you on various occasions admitted that you won't respect NPOV, which is a policy. Don't expect me to get out of your way. Pretty much everyone are tired of your irrelevent comments which have nothing to do with the content of this article. Fad (ix) 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Toth unfortunately suffers from an acute form of VD (see arguments page) Amjikian 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the recent restructure is an improvment. "Views of Turkish people" is too general as Marshall has noted. Imo, one section should note the Turkish government position since it is the official response, another deal with Academic views consisting of those who support and deny including Turkish scholars on both sides and new section should be created for 'Recent Developments' where the controversies surrounding Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink's death can be included. --A.Garnet 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As the overwhelming position (academic and otherwise) on this matter is acknolwledgement of the Armenian Genocide (as indisputable fact) and acceptance of its basic understood chronology and facts (including perpetrators, methods and motivations for such etc. as well as sources of evidence for this knowledge) - I suggest that your and other attempts here to push the (not widely held/believed) Turkish denialist position are disproportionate to the deserved level of treatment of this position in the article and consist of pushing an unsupported minority position that is not held by the majority of scholars. At best the article should mention that Turkey, Turks and certain academics with various connections and/or dependence on Turkey hold a counter postion and briefly why. However, the article should not just present [mention the existance of] the denialist views but more importantly [of more true academic interest] the article should present the views of the majority of genocide scholars and hsitorians/academics concerning why the Armenian Genocide is denied by such entities and it should also mention the existance of a Turkish Government funded and very active campaign to push denial...including evidence such as the presence of overwhelmingly Turkish deniers on this talk page and in related internet forums and venues concerning the Armenian Genocide and such). This is the appropriate way to present valid information pertaining ot this subject and this should satisfy the deserved level of detail (regarding the denial of the truth/facts in regard to this issue). The bulk of the article should deal with the known facts of the Armenian Genocide itself - as would be expected in a proper encyclopedic article and not a mouthpeice for Turkish denialist propoganda.--THOTH 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Garnet has been here long enough to understand how Wikipedia works, but some will never understand how things works here. Fad (ix) 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you the Thoth mentioned above? oops deniz^T_C 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The one and only, attached to this talkpage with an umbilical cord. Fad (ix) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Thoth something related to Armenians? There are at least two users with that username. According to wikipedia, it is an Egyptian deity, you might need to edit that article. deniz^T_C 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Garnet. Someone said above that since Pamuk won a Nobel, he was an academic and thus could be presented as such in this article. That's wrong. He is an academic, but not on history. A chemist is not an academician if a mathemetical proposition is concerned. Neither is Dink for that matter, he was a journalist and was more preoccupied with the modern-day repurcussions, not the subject itself. For someone to be presented as an academician in this article, he must be a historian. Even Einstein cannot be presented as an academic since his "academic credentials" didn't extend to history. That's all. They can get a mention in relation with 301 in a recent developments section or something of the like and it would be much more relevant in fact. I really fail to see what Dink or Pamuk said clarifies on the historical analysis of the events themselves, really. Baristarim 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

-- no name Barış, please see academic. Man, this is the n^th time, I get an edit conflict error with small messages, all with you. deniz^T_C 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to sign :) Baristarim 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sözde

An anonymous user has added the word "Sözde" to the Turkish name for the Armenian Genocide. I have removed it. Sözde means "supposedly" or "so-called", and adding it to the name violates WP:NPOV. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Turkey, we say so-called genocide, It think that is why he put it. Because we heard the real stories from our grandfathers. As you know these events happened 90 years ago. And we have 110 years old mans.. and they live and they tell us what happened.. This so-called genocide is not like the history that happened 1000 year ago.. It is a near past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs)

Check this out !

BBC, The World's most prestigous and reputable news channel does not call these events "a genocide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505927.stm, so can anybody explain to me why we have such article on Wikipedia? Furthermore, to my opinion Turkish people are not so mean with their words as Armenians when you read through the discussions on this page. Don't you agree? 88.235.97.58 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, because one article calling it "mass killings" instead of genocide means the whole page should be deleted. Not quite --AW 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, did you read the article? It says this "Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in a genocide by Ottoman Turks during World War I, either through systematic massacres or through starvation. More than a dozen countries, various international bodies and many Western historians agree that it was genocide. Turkey says there was no genocide. It acknowledges that many Armenians died, but says the figure was below one million." --AW 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we change the article itself. My POV is What would Armenians think if some other people have created an article named "So Called Armenian Genocide"? My suggestion is to name this article as "Mass Killings of Armenians" and when "Armenian Genocide" searched, it should direct to the first one. Furthermore, I suggest to remove the article named "Denial of the Armenain Genocide". 88.235.97.58 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are so many failings in logic (and Enlish) in the argument that you are making, I honestly don't know where to start. A genocide is a systematic mass killing, and even if that is what the article said, you can't call the BBC the most prestigous news channel (POV) and delete an article purely on what is said in one source. That's biased. You're biased. The reason you're here is very apparant: you want to try to aid in a massive cover up of a genocide on the grounds that you don't want Turkey to look bad. Admit and ask forgiveness. I mean you're wrong. The whole world, even the BBC, says it happened. You're wrong. 24.107.66.62 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (My account is stopmenow100, I just didn't want to bother logging in).

Protection Policy

'Armenian Genocide' is a controversial topic on which there is no scientific consensus.

"Wikipedia:Protection policy" (and "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines") in a way restrict a democratic discussion.

I do not mean that I favor any side of the debate but as far as I am concerned, this article is similar to an article which would claim that God absolutely existed and some certain group or society was rejecting this fact. Presenting a controversial subject as a fact and saying that one of the sides of this two-sided event rejects this fact, do not contribute to the discussion.

Armenians claiming that this is such a fact that it is not debatable or Turks claiming that this is such unreal that it is not debatable are both wrong.

It should be stated in the article that this is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story. And people who are on the other side should be allowed to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this.

I believe that many people like myself would prefer to hear different points on a subject rather than being presented with selective information.

Forgive me if I made any mistakes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Memox 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Memox, I have been arguing for this for a long time, and I even quite Wiki for a couple of months. It is very good to have a second opinion. I have never tried to change the article itself, but wanted to add some translation from Turkish wiki, which was the Turkish POV. I want to ask again, whether it would be suitable to insert some parts of Turkish POV, with Turkish claims? Caglarkoca 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable and relevant Turkish views can be added to Armenian Genocide#The positions of Turkish people, provided they are referenced. Other relevant views can be added to Armenian Genocide#Academic views on the issue outside Turkey and Armenian Genocide#The position of the international community. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When the powers that be in Wikipedia agree to amend the Holocaust article to state that in fact "it is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story". And when - in your words - they agree to let people who are on the other side to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this - then I would say that precedent has been established and that the Armenian Genocide article should follow suit. In the meantine - yes you are mistaken. However, we forgive you. In fact there is no real debate. There is the truth. There is real and accurate depiction of history. And then there is a shameful political agenda that is being pursued by one nation and by brainwashed people of that nation to continue to perpetuate lies and half-truths for the purpose of denying clulpability in the enactment of known, acknowledged and highly witnessed and well documented crimes commited against humanity - in this case against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and against its other Christian inhabitants by the majority population of Muslim Turks. Tese essential facts are unassailable even though the deniers use every tact and every approach imaginable to do so. But of course part of this effort is to disrupt processes such as this article - giving the aprearance of "debate" on these basic issues when in fact there is no legitimate debate at all. They think that this helps to cover up the crimes of the past and recognition of them and of discussion and presentation of the details and relevant facts and issues. And it is apparent that these tactics suceed on at least a certain level because here we are discussing this bullsh*t when we would be better served working toward a more accurate true presentation of the history and related issues as opposed to endless debate over whether it is or is not a genocide and debating whether or not we have properly considered and included the "Turkish" position. I think we havfe given more then enough time and attention to this "Turkish" position and it is well past the time to move on to real issues.--THOTH 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Why all the external links are the ones which support the Armenian theory? For instance, why not this website ? Miller --88.106.11.115 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because it is not considered a theory, as much as a historical fact? Or perhaps because the cited website has no credentials and a fairly obvious POV? Just possibilities...The Myotis 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Myotis, but I think these are still theories. I am following this genocide issue since 2005, I did not see even one strong evidence which really manifests that there was an Armenian genocide and / or Turks didn't do anything to Armenians. I am not sure if you are aware of it but there are even some serious discussions going on about the picture on the main page - Wallstein Verlag picture.. :-) In this sense, I really don't see any difference between an Armenian website and a Turkish website. What I was trying to say is, if there is going to be a objective article about this issue, I think, there should be information / references from both sides. Don't you think? (PS: I am not Turkish or Armenian..) Miller 88.106.107.162 22:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we do not build an article by balancing between the two most passionate opposing voices say, but on the thesis of the more neutral institutions. Since the vast majority of historical have defined the events as 'genocide', that is what the article is written towards. The 'external links' section just gives more specialized sources aligned to the already established thesis. Looking at the Bibliography section, you will see that we have sources from both Armenians and Turks, but most of the sources cited are neither.The Myotis 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not my point, I think you are deflecting what I try to say. I think external links as important as the article itself as they give people a chance to see different opinions from both sides, I am not talking about cited references. And right now, article has only 3 external links which advocate the Armenian view. That was my main question (sorry, maybe it wasn't quite clear) and your reply is definitely not the right answer. Are you saying that armeniapedia.org website is more objective than www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr ? If yes, based on what and/or who? Historical evidence? I really don't think so. Let's not be subjective ... Miller 88.106.121.156 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If people want to see the opposing viewpoint they can look at the Armenian genocide denial page. I think it states the opposition very neutrally, and give external links avocating the minority view. It is not the job of Wikipedia to represent all viewpoints, and no other Genocide article gives denialist sources. The Myotis 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought all the articles should be objective here in wikipedia and as far as I see, this article is not; at least the external links section. If this was an objective article as you said, there should have been other external links as well (which are opposing). Also I am not talking about other genocide articles, we are discussing this one right now. If others don't have essential external links, then they should be corrected too. Miller 88.106.95.83 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you confirm that you believe other Genocide articles should also include minority/denialist views? And you believe that they should be 'corrected' as if in violation of Wikipedia policy? Well, I am sorry, but neither this nor any other article (all of which are WP policy compliant) accepts such sources and there is no reason for AG to become an exception to the rule. If you want to change it, you will have to do it to every similarly situated Wikipedia article simultaneously, and the only way that would be possible would be to change WP official policy.The Myotis 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat again (hopefully for the last time), I am just talking about external links, not overall condition of the article (Cows fly kites, thanks for clarifying that below, but again, I am not questioning the genocide thesis. And, of course, I totally agree that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider). I do not confirm anything, I just asked a question about external links. Minority, majority thing is completely your opinion, you cannot count people to see how many support a thesis and how many do not. You may say people opposing to AG are minority but this would be something you made up, because you simply don't know that; you just assume that your opinion is the one which is generally accepted. Where is the objectivity on this? What I am saying is if this is an objective article, there should be also other 'external links' explaining both side's opinions and/or showing different (historical) evidences. There is no need to be a Wikipedia cop, I just need a plain answer : why there are no external links which support the other side's opinion while surely the subject deserves to be defended by both sides? Miller 88.106.62.16 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a misunderstanding that seems to have arisen. The Wikipedia policy is known as the Neutral point of view (NPOV), not the Multiple point of view (MPOV). Wikipedia articles must be written "fairly, proportionately and without bias." I agree that the article is far from perfect, and needs a lot of improvement and finetuning. But the basic structure of the article is quite good, imo: background to the events --> events --> repercussions --> views in Turkey --> views outside of Turkey. From what I understand, the events described in the article are not under dispute. The dispute revolves around the question of whether those events constitute genocide. Editors should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, Wikipedia is not the place to bring original research into the scientific community. I think the article summarizes the relevant, notable and attributed positions on the events quite nicely: the majority of scientists and of the international community feel that the events constitute genocide, with Turkey and a sizable minority of the scientific community dissenting. While the coverage of the debate can and probably should be improved (The chapters "Views of Turkish academic community and intellectuals" and "Recognition of Genocide" need to be expanded, to give one example), the basis should remain unchanged. If editors feel that those supporting or opposing the use of the term Genocide are in the wrong, it's up to them. But Wikipedia is not the place to prove them wrong. Wikipedia is not a weblog, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance and Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider. Cows fly kites ^{Main account: Aecis/Rule/Contributions} 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All very good points and well said. One thing I would like to disagree with however is your contention that a "sizable minority of the scientific community" dissents from the viw categorizing the Armenian Genocide as such. If we were to list the names of all academics, historians and scholars who have voiced an opionion on this issue and divide them into two camps - one agreeing with the designation of "genocide" and the other not - I suspect that the list of names in favor of such designation would number on the order of 200+ to 1 for ever name on the list opposing the designation of "genocide". Furthermore the vast majority of those names opposing would be the names of Turkish academics and an extremely high percentage of the remaining names would consist of scholars who are indebted to Turkey by means of direct grants and employment or through the need to curry Turkish Government favor in order to maintin the ability to access Turkish controlled sources of historical data or to obtain Turkish visas and such for necessary research that must be performed in that country. So I would not at all characterize the opposition to use of the term "genocide" applying to the Armenian Genocide as one comming from the scientific community. Instead it is clearly political opposition and nothing more. Likewise I also am not sure that I believe you accuratly characterize the views of many of the contributors here who seem to have issues with the article as it now stands as accepting/not disputing the factuality of the events described in the article. In fact it is apparent from their edits and from their comments here that they do not in fact accept many of the very basic descriptions of the history and the premisses inherrent in the presentation of such as written. Of course the even more basic issue regarding the characterization of these events as genocide itself is hampering things and causing much unessecary and unproductive debate - but it cannot be ignored that there is a "sizable minority" of editors and commentators here who do not in fact even believe that the events described in this article are historically accurate at all and who believe differently about what occured - who believe that the vast eyewitness data that has been compiled and the incredible amounts of scholarly presentation and anlysis that has been performed are simply fabricated and ficticious - and this to me is a very fundemental aspect of our problem here. I'm not sure what to do about it and I share the feeling among many Wikians that this is not the proper place for debating these facts and debunking fantastical notions to the contrary - but given that there are significant numbers of outright deniers who apear in these pages on a weekly basis I am not sure that we can ignore this and allow such misinformation and politicaly motivated input to go on unchallenged. And this is why I comment here as I do - even knowing that many believe it to be inappropriate - and I understand this as well - however I see no option. As long as there are individuals and groups who are making such claims - that this is all fiction and propoganda, or that it was not Genocide but some kind of justyfiable action and it is only because of anti-Turkishness or such that it is being portrayed as it is, or that it was just a civil war (even though the facts belie this claim utterly) and such - what can we do? We can't just ignore these views and accept the vandalism - we have to counter and protect the truth. And while I agree the article is far from perfect - there have been few suggestions for its improvement that in fact would be improvements IMO. I think that it is incumbant on Wikipedia to understand that this article may have to be far lengthier and far more in-depth in its coverage to ensure its unassailability by the biased/bigoted political forces set against it (who would perfer that such an article not even exist at all). We may just have to address every objection and every alternative perspective that comes along and do so in a way that is well supported from the scholarly world - and IMO this means a great deal of background discussion and presentation - more so then currently exists in the article. Anyway that is and has always been my perspective on this. But in the meantime - lacking that - I will at the very least contribute here in these talk pages to ensure that we not get to carried away in fictions.--THOTH 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See, I am totally out of this but to tell the truth even the heading "Armenian genocide denial" does not really sound neutral to me. so it2s not as if there are two viewpoints, but there is one right viewpoint, and the other one that denies that absolute truth. The neutral one would be "refusal of the armenian genocide allegations" or something like that. Anyway, just wanted to mention it. I personally think that it's useless to argue about a past event when there are still genocides going around the world. Regards, Kerem Özcan 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

'Denial' is used as it is the opposite of 'recognition'. The viewpoints are portrayed the way they are, not as a 'truth' and a 'falsehood', but as the 'majority view' and the 'minority view'. According to Wikipedia policy, a significant minority view can be described in detail as long as it is not portrayed as the 'truth'. Look, for example, at the Evolution article, no creationist links. Holocaust article? Nope, no denialist sources there. I am not sure what your definition of "objective" is, but if you believe being objective necessitates that every article describe the minority view, then clearly Wikipedia is not "objective". The Myotis 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you would also advocate that the Holocaust denial article be changed to "refusal of the Jewish Holocaust allegations"?--THOTH 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no hard how some people try, this will never be in the same ballgame as the Holocaust and definitely not Evolution (that refers to a scientific concept btw, not a historical analysis). I don't want to get into debates in this article, but I have posted comments before to this effect. People have a right to make their own research and wonder if the genocide classification applies to this. Therefore the analogy with the Holocaust denial is not correct, since most Holocaust deniers deny outright that Jews died and that it is all one big scam - however in this case, the "opposing" position espouses the view that even though many people have died, it shouldn't/can't be classified as a genocide and/or questions about the involvement of the Ottoman government (which is a key part considering the recent case pitting Bosnia against Serbia where it was decided that Serbia didn't commit genocide - I don't think that we can call the judges of the ICJ as "Holocaust deniers", can we?). There is a big difference, and I frankly think that it is pretty childish all these attempts to equate everyone who makes research/wonders if the events can be classified as genocide into the same group as common Neo-Nazis or conspiracy theorists (see my example above about Serbia/Bosnia - people have a legitimate right to make their own research in good faith and not be afraid of a political correctness firestorm). Just my two cents.. Baristarim 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are very wrong here in every respect. The Armenian Genocide is more then sufficiently proven as such - including intent (absolutly), including Ottoman Government chorographation (my word BTW - but one that absolutly fits) - and certainly the events are known and witnessed and the results are clear - GENOCIDE. In addition there have been trials - aborted certainly, but enough to make the picture quite clear. And in addition to all the eyewitness accounts and official reports from governments and such - there have been plenty of confessions to the crimes as well as admissions by various Turks from the time. And there are legal rulings as to the applicability of the term/concept of Genocide as applies to this case and there is the fact of the origin of the concept of the word being created to specifically describe this very event and for it to be the model for the type of events that have come to be known as Genocide. We have presented all of this information many times before. The probelm lies with those of you who just utterly fail to see reason and truth and instead attempt to be legalistic with minutia and tangental arguments - none of which change the basic facts and truth of the Armenian Genocide nor do your arguments here affect one iota what is occuring in the scholarly world and what scholars and historians publish and know about this issue (overwhelminlgy concluding genocide - with the only serious disagreements concerning particulars that in no way would or could change this designation). And again you are wrong in your mischaracterization of the Armenian Genocide. It is in all major respects EXACTLY like the Holocaust - as is its denial. So it is you and the likes of you who need to cease your pathetic and "childish" attempts at denial and prove that you are not here just to push a faulty and already discredited national agenda and continue in the tradition of your government to deny and thus perpetuate and be accomplice to genocide. Have a nice day. --THOTH 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I was referring to something completely different, but you went on ranting on a completely different road. Read my post carefully again: It is much more subtle than that, and I touched upon other aspects. However, I don't like getting into discussions in this talk page since this page never became more than some common forum.. Have a nice day too. cheers! Baristarim 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look, first of all I did not advocate or propose any name changes. And yes, the first sentence of the Holocaust denial article goes as "Holocaust denial (commonly called Holocaust revisionism by its supporters)" is kind of the same thing. The difference between Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is that, the people responsible for holocaust were judged, found guilty of genocide and even today's germany recognizes the events. Still, it could be under the name of "Holocaust revisionism" and it wouldn't bother me. That doesn't mean that I refuse that it ever happened. Plus you're talking to the wrong guy, we have had this discussion before (I was known as Ombudsee then) and I have never denied the mass killings of Armenians. And while I was defending Hrant Dink's ideas, you were on the other side. (See my talk page)

And Myotis, I didn't say that we should include external links either. That discussion was made here maybe about ten times. I understand the reasoning behind that perfectly. I just thought that the title for the denial page sounded oddly contradicting itself. An Oxymoron you might say. Plus; Wikipedia is not, and can not be a Neutral place anyways. History is always re-written by the ones in power. Why (and by whom) do you think were the events in 1915 were pigeonholed up until now, and they are suddenly becoming apparent now? you blame the Turkish government? I don't think so. How come we don't see a movie about American indian genocide, Sedif massacre or Dresden Bombing, while there are hundreds about Holocaust?

I really don't understand the people who sit front of the computer all day rowing in the Armenian Genocide forums. I just think that if Turkish government recognizes the event as a genocide one-day, there will be no purpose of life for them anymore. I mean, stop wasting the time as such and do something that actually worths it. Feed an African child, teach somebody how to fish - I don't know! Or else we'll keep hearing the Iraqi civilian casulities as statistics, and death of an American soldier as a "A brave fighter sacrificing his life for the freedom of others". Duh.

Anyway, I am getting off topic. I try to stay out of this, and everytime I roll in once again.

Just wanted to make it clear once more, I respect and share your pains;

Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you obviously do neither (respect our pains nor do you share them). Instead of showing respect you do quite the opposite. So "hundreds of movies about the holocaust" you say - please name these "hundreds" before you make such claims - claims that in fact are absurd (as if number of movies made about something makes it true - look at all the movies made about the bible - I win this argument BTW)...as is your anti-semitic undercurrent here is rather sad...again certain nationalistic Turks don't know how to do anything but jump in and attempt to shift blame away from their government at every oppurtunity....and you accuse Armenians of having nothing better to do...and you accuse Armenians of needing to do something more important. Please keep you uneeded and irrelevant opinions to yourself.--THOTH 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, keep putting words in my mouth. I am out of this. Kerem Özcan 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"since most Holocaust deniers deny outright that Jews died" -- no, no Holocaust denier does that. If you're going to talk about "everyone who makes research", you might want to demonstrate that you've done some. But in any case this "research" is irrelevant, since it is against Wikipedia policy. It is not up to editors to determine whether "the events can be classified as genocide", but only whether they are so classified by cited sources. Really, folks, Wikipedia would be a much better place if you all left your nationalism and ideologies at home, and stuck to editing. -- Jibal 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, I don't think you quite understand what Holocaust denial is . I think Jibal beat me to it, but I was going to say that Holocaust denial very rarely entails a direct denial that any Jews died, but is usually comprised of claims that far less Jews died than conventional estimates, that there were not even 6 million living in Europe at that time, that the Jews were not intentionally killed but instead died from wartime famine and disease. They also claim that there were conspiracies within the Allied government to exaggerate the Jews plight in order to demonize Germans, or that, even though crimes were committed, they were not the result of orders from the German government. And many people who have been identified as Holocaust deniers have no visible ties to Neo-Nazi organizations or conspiracy circles. Even several card-carrying historians (Harry Elmer Barnes, David Hoggan, and James J. Martin, for example) have taken up Holocaust denial. One could easily compare them to Justin McCarthy. As for a scientific concept vs. a historical analysis, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they require the same validation. In any case, the precedent should stand.The Myotis 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The so-called Armenian Genocide is a production of AntiTurc attraction. In fact there was the 1st World War, and the Ottoman Empire's troops were battling on different fronts and very outside of Anatolia. The Anatolian Turkish population was out of the protection and the external (mainly France) powered Armenian gangs were killing them. Since the male population was mainly in fronts of the war and the Armenian-Ottoman citizens were not obliged to have the military service, the Turkish families were free of protection. The Armenian gangs had this opportunity to attack the innocent families and kill them in a massive way. Today many of the graves of those people are still to be explored. For this reason the goverment of the Ottoman Empire led by Talat Pasha took the decision, which was forcing to dislocate the Armenian-Anatolian population. During this dislocation of the Armenian population, under the for the time being's conditions, were unfortunatelly died. But this was absolutely no genocide, but a very rightful action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.97.244 (talk • contribs)

Please use this talk page to discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dislocation is not and cannot be a rightful action, but it was not a genocide. Caglarkoca 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is of the opinion that there was no Armenian Genocide or that there is insufficient evidence to claim the Armenian Genocide as fact is either just purely mistaken (due to ignorance) or is supporting a purely political agenda. In either case they have no business editing the article - just as a Holocaust denier has no business editing the Holocaust article.--THOTH 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, just a quote from the last Star Wars movie : 'Only the Sith deal in absolutes' :) Miller 88.106.121.156 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Miller - just a quote from Evil Dead 2...on second thought...anyway nevermind Darth Genocidius...--THOTH 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"When the powers that be in Wikipedia agree to amend the Holocaust article to state that in fact "it is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story". And when - in your words - they agree to let people who are on the other side to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this - then I would say that precedent has been established and that the Armenian Genocide article should follow suit. In the meantine - yes you are mistaken. However, we forgive you. In fact there is no real debate. There is the truth. There is real and accurate depiction of history. And then there is a shameful political agenda that is being pursued by one nation and by brainwashed people of that nation to continue to perpetuate lies and half-truths for the purpose of denying clulpability in the enactment of known, acknowledged and highly witnessed and well documented crimes commited against humanity - in this case against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and against its other Christian inhabitants by the majority population of Muslim Turks. Tese essential facts are unassailable even though the deniers use every tact and every approach imaginable to do so. But of course part of this effort is to disrupt processes such as this article - giving the aprearance of "debate" on these basic issues when in fact there is no legitimate debate at all. They think that this helps to cover up the crimes of the past and recognition of them and of discussion and presentation of the details and relevant facts and issues. And it is apparent that these tactics suceed on at least a certain level because here we are discussing this bullsh*t when we would be better served working toward a more accurate true presentation of the history and related issues as opposed to endless debate over whether it is or is not a genocide and debating whether or not we have properly considered and included the "Turkish" position. I think we havfe given more then enough time and attention to this "Turkish" position and it is well past the time to move on to real issues" THOTH, that was brilliant. very well said.

ari 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 88.106.62.16 (Miller) to some extent. The external links section of this article should contain all relevant and notable websites about the Armenian Genocide. Per Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article...", provided the linked website does not "mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." It should be reminded that linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement of the content of the website. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine - but two (related) questions - Does Wikipedia support links to hate sites - because any site that outright denies the Armenian Genocide or makes false counter charges (ie Blames the victims) is indeed a hate site, and does the Holocaust article in Wikipedia provide links to Holocaust denial web sites? If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then I do not think it is right to provide links to such sites here either. Furthermore I would protest against linking to any more then a single Turkish Government web site on this matter. Even with one you are thrusting a dagger into the hearts of the descendents of survivors of this genocide as well as highly disrespecting the dead.--THOTH 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Holocuast "links". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29 Quite an impressive list I should add - and I could not find a one that linked to any site denying the Holocaust. Funny that. --THOTH 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is the article concerning Holocaust denial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial At the bottom there are a variety of links. Even here only a few actually go to "examples of denial websites" - the rest are analysis of this phenomenon of denial. I believe that the Armenian Genocide article and the accompanying Denial of the Armenian Genocide article (and their links) should follow suit. Allowing anything else here - IMO - is giving in and participating in Armenian Genocide denial. Is this a position that we want to see Wikipedia in? --THOTH 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust resources does not have the same purpouses as a main. It contains resources on the Holocaust position. I already created such on the Armenian Genocide in the past, which is not used and forgothen, but something different with mine was that it also included ressources from the other side. I do not care what there is in other articles, as I believe that the revisionist position has a place on every of those articles. The reader should know that such a position exist, removing it is totally misleading as it suggest that such a position does not exist. Also, removing those informations is an insult to the intelligence of the reader, as those removing it under the pretext that it is misleading think that the reader is not intelligent enough to understand from the text what is the majority and what is the minority position. The only way to work on this article and prevent edit warring, the only way to bring Turkish contributors so that they too feal that they could contribute is to make it absolute, absolute NPOV. The majority position, the minority position. One might disagree with the majority position, but there is no reason under policy or guideline to remove it or edit war on it. I do not expect you to adhere to this, I just hope that others are taking note on how this article should continue its progress once I would not be able to contribute on it.

This does not mean to add hatesites, it means to present the official positions of the minority positions, it does not mean to add sites like armenianreality, tallarmeniantale. But it means adding ATAA, Turkish government sites, official Turkish organization sites. Neutrality does not mean 50/50, and as far as I am aware, the Turkish contributors have accepted this by now, so there should be no problem. Fad (ix) 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I propose to add this additional link to the external links section of the article: http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=90. This is a governmental website (Turkish Historical Society) and it includes the historical facts and information about the issue. I think, data presented by experts there is quite something. Can everyone view the link and let me know? Thanks Miller 88.106.61.112 14:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly "facts" are few and far between in regards to the Turkish Historical Society web site and in general with this organization which was specifically founded by the Turkish Government to propogate its own POV version of history. Since the founding of this organization they have been responsible for a serious of incredible falsifications and the deliberate spreading of disinformation for the purpose of Armenian Genocide denial and historical fabrications. For instance THS leader Prof Halacoglu claims that Armenains commited a Genocide against the Turks and that only 80,000 Armenians were ever killed by Turks during this period. This is far from historically accurate on both counts. This website is clearly a Turkish Government propoganda site designed to further the Armenian Genocide through its denial. Its quite pathetic really and not something that Wikipedia should be promoting in any fashion.--THOTH 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not help but jump in, even though my days here are numbered, since this has a consequence on the overal article shape. I understand what Baris means and I agree with him partly, it is true that hardcore revisionists of the Holocaust do deny nearly totally that Jews died, Rassinier "calculations" were of about a million, which he claims was the result of war conditions and not any German decision which could have in any way precipitated their deaths. Also other Holocaust deniers use statistics of estimates pre and after, to claim that only excess Jews are missing (basically that there was no population growth, and this they justify by claiming it is expected during war time) Why I say I agree only partly, is because not all Holocaust deniers think like this, Irving does not, for instance in an interview he accepted 4 million losses, which is basically the figure that some scholars who accept the term Holocaust adhere to. So definitly there is two sort of deniers. And my other argument on the part which I disagree is that, there are Armenian genocide deniers who indeed deny that Armenians died, Halacoglu in his booklet claims 56,000, which is basically not much further than the loss of population excess. It is true that the denial in both cases is not on the same level, but not exactly where Baris place it.

Also, I don't see what is the problem of adding "revisionist" sites, official positions in any case should remain here, I do not agree their exclusion on the Holocaust article, one wrong does not justify another. As for Evolution, there is no comparaison, evolution is a scientific concept, it is not history, also the logic of excluding creationist science is not the same. As the revisionist sites are about the occurence of the Armenians, while most opposition to evolution are not about "evolution" in itself, its direct criticism, but on another level such as intelligent design or creationism. There too, I agree that had there been some critic sites directly on evolution, some should also go in its main. That they do not, is again not right. So other articles wrong does not justify excluding in this one some useful sites. Everyone know here that excluding those sites will lead to pointless edit wars and that there is a rational of including those sites, so be it. We are not talking about tallarmeniantale.com, this definitly does not go in the article, it is a hatesite. But official sites like those of ATAA, or the Turkish government are definitly welcome. Of course not turn this into the excess either. Fad (ix) 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding a point raised by THOTH above: Wikipedia's "task" is to provide comprehensive, authoritative, reliable, verified and unbiased articles about notable events and people. We are not in the business of respecting or disrespecting the emotions of either side of the debate. We did not do that with Piss Christ, we didn't do it with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and we shouldn't do it here. If a website is relevant and notable, it deserves to get linked. How victims feel about it is immaterial. That may sound harsh, but that is one of the consequence of striving to be comprehensive. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically my point. With a minor addition, the reason I had opposed the addition of tallarmeniantale.com, was not more of the position it maintains by rather the reliability of the site itself. It is registered by proxy, basically no one takes the responsability of the material there. As long as it is an official position, reliable, it should be added. Not to play in the excess either. And your description of what Wikipedia is right on point, it is not Wikipedia's task to say what the truth is, it's function is to represent information, the revisionist position exist and people should know of its existance. Whatever or not it is true does not make any differences. Fad (ix) 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I more then adequatly made my points above why such sites should NOT be included in the article. They are hate sites pure and simple. In the Holocaust article denial of the Holocaust is treated just as it should be. Is denial of the Armenian Genocide any different - just because it is funded and supported by a government with nearly unlimited funds and ability to sponsor "researchers" and influence a captive group of historians? NO. It is still denial and the positions put foreward are still untruth and still constitute a hateful act of genocide denial. Numerous international bodies and academic groups have stated that the essential facts and truth of the Armenian Genocide are uncontestable and its categorization as genocide is more then proven. So when ATAA and the MFA of the Turkish Government deny it - what they are doing is extremely wrong and hurtful and Wikipedia should not be supporting such things. This type od denial needs to be presented for what it is - just as the denial of the Holocaust is presented. For those who feel that the Holocaust article is in the wrong I suggest that you make these very same type of suggestions over there - and let us see what response you get - and what comes of it.--THOTH 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The inclusion of those sites has reached concensus, their removal was done without prior discussion. "Hurtful" and "wrong" are alien concepts to Wikipedia. Stop that. Fad (ix) 06:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • THOTH, just for clarity: inclusion of a link does not imply endorsement of the content of the linked website. Being "hurtful" is not a relevant criterion for a link, and Wikipedia doesn't "support such things" by including a link. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Obviously some folks here such as yourself see things differently then those who have participated in editing of the Holocaust article for instance. And obviously you see it differently then historians and history book writers. And obviously you see it differently then the editors at Microsoft Encarta (who in 2000 rebuffed an attempt by the Turkish Government to eliminate reference to the Armenian Genocie as "genocide"). And obviously you see it differently then the Massachusettes School Board that refuses to provide links to Turkish sponsored denialist web sites. Why do all of these folks hold this view - counter to yours? Well, they understand that genocide denial is in fact part of the process of genocide itself. For WIkipedia to give in to Turkish pressure and allow denial of the Armenian Genocide to have a forum makes Wikipedia itself and all of its editors who allow such a thing accomplices in genocide. It is as simple as that. This is what is widely accepted - I'm not making it up. Additionally we need to deal with this aspect of genocide - the denial itself - in both this article and in every article where genocide is denied. Thus I contend that the Holocaust article (and the corresponding Holocaust references article) has done it correctly. And it is clear that we should follow their example here. In fact it is all the more important as the denial of this genocide is more pervasive do to the active participation and encouragement of the Turkish Government. And I cannot believe that editors of such a fine project as Wikipedia would allow themselves to sucumb to such pressure. We have to do the right thing here. --THOTH 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
        • THOTH, I understand you care deeply about this issue. But what could you possibly stand to gain by putting words into the mouths of other people? Where have I indicated that I view the Armenian Genocide different "then historians and history book writers"? Where have I indicated that I view the Armenian Genocide different "then the editors at Microsoft Encarta (who in 2000 rebuffed an attempt by the Turkish Government to eliminate reference to the Armenian Genocie as "genocide")"? I have said that it might be possible to include some links to some websites, provided they meet the conditions outlined by our External Links policy. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
          • My impression is that you are advocating inclusion of denialist websites in the links section of this article. If this is not so - and you oppose inclusion of such links - then your views are in accordance with those I have cited.--THOTH 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not advocating anything. All I said was that including a link to certain websites under certain conditions is allowed under our External Links policy. Whether an individual website meets those conditions has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. We are not responsible for the content of other websites, and inclusion of a link does not mean endorsement of the content of those websites. But let's suppose, just for the sake of the point you are trying to make, that I was "advocating inclusion of denialist websites in the links section of this article." How does that mean that my position on the Armenian Genocide itself differs from "historians and history book writers" and "editors at Microsoft Encarta"? How does advocating the inclusion of a particular type of website equal advocating the content of such websites? The article on Stormfront has a link to the white nationalist website of Stormfront, but does that mean that Wikipedia or the editors of that specific article endorse or advocate the content of that website? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Your position here is quite disingenuous and you should know it. There is a great deal of difference between an article concerning a hate website - and thus linking to the site about which the article in question is referring - and linking to propoganda sites that deny the truth of the subject of this article - allegedly a factual encycleopedic article about actual historical events. As Encarta and these other entities refused to succumb to the pressure of the denialists and you are conciously or otherwise allowing yourself to be atool of their denial - well I see both your position as quite different to theirs and your anology to be faulty.--THOTH 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Your position has been noted, but I'm not willing to discuss this matter with someone who calls others "disingenuous" and "a tool of their denial." I will only say that I deliberately did not compare the article on Stormfront with the article on the Armenian Genocide. I merely used the article on Stormfront as an example to illustrate how adding a link does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the content of that link. I will also say that I'm noone's tool, as my contributions to this article and this talk page will show you. With that, my participation in this discussion ends. You can have the last word, if you want to. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
                • For the 1000th time, INFORMATION, it is the purpouse of Wikipedia. Does the position that there was no genocide exist? Yes or no? It does not matter if it is true or not. There are articles on some alien spacecraft landing in 1947. Which I don't buy a second, does the event happening makes any differences on the existance of the position? The official position of the thesis that there was no genocide is presented in websites, readers should be informed of those websites. The sites which should be excluded are those who are not official positions, example, tallarmeniantale.com, armeniareality.com etc., those sites do not belong here. But definitly, ATAA or sites relating to the official Turkish government position should be included, they represent the official anti-thesis position. No one beside you had any problem what so ever with their inclusion, their inclusion had reached concensus, their removal, not. Fad (ix) 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

By your logic if there are any unofficial positions about the genocide then these should be included as well - as we are here to provide INFORMATION (any and all aparently). Like you said - it doesn't matter if it is true or not. In fact I imigine there might be articles that claim aliens from the future came back to 1915 and commited the genocide and that Turks were just innocent bystanders who have been set up to take the blame - my we must reference all of those websites and give space to those views as well. In fact I know that there are a huge number of websites that blame the Jews for all of these evils and provide a great deal of detail. Many people seem to believe that such things represent the truth - shouldn't we explain these views as well and provide links to these sites too. C'mon now - lets get at it! And i'm certain that there are "official organizations" of all types that have staked out positions - how can we afford to not include them all - The Turkish MHP party has some things to say about this for instance. I'm certain an argument can be made to link their websites. In fact I don't see anyone objecting - so it must be the consensus to include them as well...and so on...and finally I think I will make sure that all of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's prounouncemtns oin the Holocaust are linked to that sirte - I mean he is the President of a major world nation...pretty official - how can we leave him out? I mean Wikepedia readers want to know! And there are all sorts of sites that deal with ideas of various organizations regarding the naute of life, creation, the universe, and so on and so forth - shouldn't we append links to these sites to every scientific article dealing with these subjects? I mean - it doesn't matter if it is true or not we are just providing a conduit to more INFORMATION right? Shouldn't any anti-thesis position be linked and mentioned no matter how far fetched? Just where do we draw the line eh? I happen to think that the Armenian Genocide is no thesis - it is factual. And I happen to think encyclopedias (such as this one purports to be) are supposed to be factual not fiction. You are advocating presenting fiction as fact as far as I'm concerned and I think anyone reading this who is concerned about this and the slippery slope of presidence this will put us (and many other articles) on - should weigh in and comment here lest certain parties assume that no comments mean aquiesence to such concepts --THOTH 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not use the few days that are left to me on this irrelevent discussion. Fad (ix) 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information..." If critical links are not allowed, this wikipedia-article is violating the wikipedia rules.Chonanh 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.
The wiki-moderators should act according this. That means not refusing links which critize the Armenian "genocide".Chonanh 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the NPOV page before you cite it, particularly the WP:UNDUE section. There you will it stated that giving undue weight to a minority view goes against Wikipedia policy. It is fairly clear that the aerialists are outnumbers by the confirmers, and that the petty collection of academics, many of whom are not actual historians and really have no place in defining the event, and few of whom are of any notability, hardly counters the decisions of the 126 Holocaust Scholars, the members of IAGS, the Institute on the Holocaust and genocide, and those who experienced similar events first-hand such as Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer.The Myotis 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Which minority view do you mean? The world of scientist in this matter (historians, Middle East scientists, etc.) is far greater than 126 Holocaust Scholars you mention. There must be thousands of historians in the world and a small number has a point of view in this matter. You can't take the point of view of a tiny group and tell wiki-visitors that the rest represents a minority view.

It's better for the people responsible for this article (the mods) that they act fairly. Otherwise in the long run the behaviour shown here (it resembles to censur in order to show one point of view)will strike themselves. Don't forget the wiki-community is greater than the people handling this article. When they see how here the wiki-standards are levelled down, they could act.My advice to the people responsible for this article here: act fair.Chonanh 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are more than a couple hundreds of 'Western' historians interested in this, heck we might not even have a 100 (despite 126).

I could very easily become a member, just paying some annual fee. Also the council deciding something does not mean everyone agrees with it, that means less than half oppose it. deniz^T_C 03:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that most people (and most historians) probably do not have a strong opinion on the subject. However, out of the historians that do, the majority of them (and virtually all of them without any obvious POV) do use the 'g-word'. I understand it is difficult to determine what 'they all' believe, so in many cases (when such numbers are unavailable or difficult to sort through) it may be better to simply take the mainstream view, the one published by most nonpartisan sources (Universities and scientific/historical publications). Also, the affirmation made by the International Association of genocide scholars passed unanimously, and the 126 academics signed their name to a petition. The Myotis 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Myotis, the problem is about this 'nonpartisan' thing. Please see the references section. We are giving too much weight, probably undue weight to this Michigan Armenian Research Center (also I dislike having so many citations to Balakian's book, we should have more citations from Dadrian and the likes, Balakian is a literature academic, not a historian).

"The creation of the Center for Armenian Research and Publication at The University of Michigan-Dearborn (Knights of Vartan Endowment, Armenian Research Center), was due to the vision of Dr. Dennis R. Papazian and other far-sighted members of the Knights of Vartan, a North American fraternal Armenian organization, who desired to establish a facility devoted to documentation and publication in the field of Armenian studies and research which would be attached to a well-known and highly respected American university.

The Center would be dedicated to documenting the Armenian Genocide and current Armenian issues, and establishing a resource center available to students, faculty, and the public. It was to engage in anti-defamation work and was to inform opinion makers, officials and the public regarding issues of interest to the Armenians.

The Center received initial start-up money ($25,000) from the members of the Knights of Vartan Nareg Lodge, No. 32, Detroit, and a further grant of $75,000 from the Knights of Vartan Grand Lodge in 1985, under the leadership of then Grand Commander Kachadoor Kazarian. The Grand Lodge has continued to support the Center with annual gifts.

Dr. Papazian then sought to augment the original donations through private contributions to create a $1,000,000 endowment to ensure the continuation of the Center in perpetuity, through spending only the interest generated by the Knights of Vartan endowment account. Since only the interest is spent, the annual budget is modest. Many Knights (asbeds) responded to the call, including the late Edward Mardigian who generously donated $500,000 as a challenge grant (and an additional $375,000 for the campus library). That challenge was finally fulfilled in 1993, when, due to the efforts of then Grand Commander Kegham Tcholakian, Past Commander Suren Fesjian pledged $100,000, which completed the endowment in a two year period. Asbed brothers and their friends have thus contributed $300,000 over the past eight years through annual solicitations, finally reaching the goal of $1,000,000."[4]

Another thing is the 'denialist' position is misrepresented, everybody (maybe except Halacoglu) says that many hundred thousands of Armenians died (eg Dadrian around 1 mi as far as I know). The main point of the position is that many 'Turks' died as well, and also that the term 'genocide' does not apply due to the lack of the (proven) intentions of the state. That's why I think Karl should revert himself. Enver Pasha and the likes were not the best commanders, he himself 'killed' (caused the death of) almost one hundred thousand Ottoman soldiers without fighting, and that's is like his only major battle. He might have been 'stupid' (especially siding with Germans throughout the war), but we still do not have any evidence to destroy an ethnicity from the Ottoman documents, which should be the main source. The lack of intention to eliminate an ethnicity/stupidity of the commanding elite should in my opinion be not so important, the death of people should be the important thing, and it did happen. Many of those 126 probably think similar to me, and probably many of them have some Jewish or Armenian background. To be one of the 126, they just needed to have paid some annual fee, and to go to the meeting wherever it was deniz^T_C 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

When I said ‘nonpartisan’ I meant considering mainly the opinions of completely neutral sources, with no Armenian or Turkish sources, and only in reference to defining the event. After the mainstream interpretation is established, sources that comply to that interpretation may be used.

I don’t think anybody familiar with any form of genocide denial. If you check the Holocaust denial article, you will find that the majority of people categorized as such do not actually deny the deaths of Jews, but rather claim that the death tolls were much smaller, the deaths were the indirect result of the war, the camps were not designed to kill, only to contain, etc. As for the 126 scholars who singed the petition, none of them had to pay for anything, and i don't belweive they were formally connected by anything. Here is a partial list of their names[5]. Almost entirely university professors, as you can see. And I doubt that the IAGS is any easier to join. Also, I don’t understand how being of Jewish background would influence a person to affirm the Armenian genocide.The Myotis 03:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sources

Should we make a section about the sources, and keep it unarchived, so that editors can have a quick look at that section and be aware of the previous discussions about these sources? We can have something like this:

Book or website || summary (good source or bad source since it does not satisfy [these wiki rules], Example: 1) ..., 2) ... (maybe a third one as well, only the main points)

They will be good until proven to be bad. What do you think about this suggestion? I hope it won't cause another wave of hot discussions (which this talk page is apparently prone to), please if we are going to do it, lets just be precise and concise. Such a section would have helped me a lot. deniz^T_C 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By book, I guess you are talking about ressources, I think only books which were consulted to write the actual article should be placed on the main. But I have already in the past created a page, with the ressources. Fad (ix) 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is that page? deniz^T_C 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone redirected it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_resources a bad move. Fad (ix) 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to undo the redirect and then move the page to AG/resources (subpage), and create a link on the archive box, above the link to your analysis. Should I go for it? deniz^T_C 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to creat subpages, but undoing is definitly a good move, I don't know what happened of the content if it was deleted, you might ask to an administrator so that he/she undo-delete it. I am just trying to make the last arrangements before they ban me. Fad (ix) 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, it was redirected because supposedly it did not deserve its own page. So I think, a subpage would be fine in that case. Now, after moving the old article page will be redirected to this subpage, so anyone typing that will get to the subpage. Take care. deniz^T_C 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A subpage will have no role other than being a subpage of a talkpage, everyone will ignore it, the main was ignored and then redirected, a subpage will make of its content as if innexistant. Any information worth being accessed should have a main. Fad (ix) 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My POV & Suggestions

I am an Armenian living in Turkey and here is my POV & suggestions:

1. Why Before War section is so small when the rest is too detailed, even without any scientific evidence? I am quite astonished to see my relatives in California know and write so much then me & my family who didn't left Anatolia since then. Why not mention that we lived together with Turks in harmony for 900 years and even in WW1 there were our people in government itself? If Turks wanted to exterminate Armenian race they had very long time to do that. About 1000 years. But we are here right?

2. It would be objective to change this article title as "Mass Killings of Armenians".

3. Why we do not create an article called "Backstabbing of Ottoman Empire". I urge those Turkish people that are interested to create this. Yes, my people have backstabbed their own Empire. If we didn't, we could live in our homeland for another 1000 years. Look what happened now!

4. Why not create an article "Mass Killing of Turkish Women and Children by Armenians" or this one can be merged with item 3.

5. Why not create an article "So Called Armenian Genocide". (Where are the Turkish contributors?)

6. Having the article on item 5, we can delete the article "Denial of the Armenian Genocide".

7. I have checked the article "Genocides in history". Almost quarter of it is full of this issue. I think Wikipedia becomes "dirty" in such way. Negligible information on what happened to Inkas, Mayas, Aztecs, native Americans.. Has anyone watched the movie called Les Invasions barbares?
From this movie:

"Contrary to belief, the 20th century wasn't that bloody. It's agreed that wars caused 100 million deaths- a round figure generally loved by historians. Add 10 million for the Russian gulags. The Chinese camps, we'll never know, but say 20 million. So 130, 135 million dead. Not all that impressive. In the 16th century, the Spanish and the Portuguese managed, without gas chambers or bombs, to slaughter 150 million Indians in Latin America. With axes that was a lot of work Sister! Even if considering that they had the Church supporting them, it was so great an achievement. An achievement so great that the Dutch, English, French and later Americans followed their lead and butchered another 50 million. 200 million dead in all! The greatest massacre in history took place right here. Right around us. And not the tiniest Holocaust museum. "Gokturkler 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Because this article is about the Genocide, not the Armeno-Turkish relation within the Empire before the genocide.

2. That would be (Mass killings of Armenians) a redirect, the event is most known in English language as "Armenian Genocide."

3. Because it will be a FORK

4. Because it will be a FORK

5. Because it will be a FORK

6. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is a total rewrite article, but we can not delete it because almost everytime the Armenian genocide is mentioned its denial is mentioned to, we definitly need such an article. This does not imply the genocide happened, you can deny a crime which you did not commit.

7. Expend the other cases in that article and it will fix your problem.

The other stuff you mention is irrelevent. Fad (ix) 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. When reading about such issue, it is important to know that Armenian and Turkish races have not met in 1850 and Turks have suddenly decided to exterminate Armenians. It is important to mention the position of Armenians in the Empire.

2. Event is most known as AG?! How do you get these statistics? The world population is 6.5 billion right? How many believe in this and counts it as a genocide? Or do you still think English is only for English and North Americans? Wikipedia should be built on scientific facts, not fairy tale stories. You can make a movie about this story but can not change the history. More people in the world believe that it was not a genocide. I can guess 1 billion to 5.5 billion. So, Wikipedia is not for that 1 billion only. Or is it?

3. This one can be a good article. At least the Turkish community of the World know the events like that. You would have 500 million Turkic community keep to it. If Turks had intention for extermination like Spanish and others, then there would be no Greek, no Bulgar, no Serbian even no Arab. Arabs have stabbed the Empire from its back as well. They even did worse and have stabbed their Caliph from his back. That's why Ataturk have abolished Caliphate.

4. Yes you are right. This one can make a sub-article of item 3. Add Arabs to this article as well.

5&6. Denial of something really does not give effect of "So called" right? If we are talking about + and -, and we keep saying "Armenian Genocide", then the opposite should be "So Called Armenian Genocide". The word "Denial" gives an objective reader a negative start at the very beginning. Why we do not call this article as "Denial of So Called Armenian Genocide"?

7. Article itself is far too long. Not necessary. If we make every sub article on it like Armenian issue, then it could easily be the longest article in Wikipedia.

Of course, other stuff is irrelevant to you because you and others really do not care about humanity or history. Your mission is different I must admit. That is what should be called a Genocide. Are there any Inkas, Mayas, Aztecs today? No! Do we have a Genocide museum for them? No. Now, thats what I would call a Genocide. There are nobody left to talk about it. Have Inkas, Mayas and Aztecs found time to live with Spanish for 1000 years?!?85.96.213.75 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Irrelevent, this article is about the Armenian Genocide.

2. It is the most used term in English language, search "Armenian 1915" here, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com. here http://www.oxfordjournals.org/, here http://books.google.com/, the word genocide in connection with the Armenians yield 1.6 million results on google. While it is true that google alone does not document notability, in connection with published materials, it does, more particularly when it is in the hundreds of thousands.

3. And the relevency with the current article?

4. Your point is?

5. The answer is quite simply, because it is called "Armenian Genocide." This does not mean it is true, it means that this article relates to an event which is called "Armenian Genocide" and the other article relate to what is called "Armenian Genocide Denial." If you have so relevent comment to make do make them.

The rest, again irrelevent, this is the Armenian Genocide talkpage, if you have any point to make on the way other events are covered on Wikipedia, bring those issues in their relevent talkpages. Fad (ix) 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of Genocide is wrong. The person who invented the word Genocide used it specially for the Assyrian and Armenians. I'm sure he knew what he was talking about. Those Aztecs that is completely irrelevant so stop going off topic. The Jews are a great example and they have survived a genocide like the Armenians. Artaxiad 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

85.96.213.75 - OK let us address your points. Point #1 I am in total agreement with. More needs to be explained concerning the dynamics of the Armenian community within the Ottoman EMpire in the period leading up to the Genocide of 1915 and more links should perhaps be provided to articles dealing with the history of Armenians and of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire since its inception. Before however characterizing the Armenian experience up until the Genocide as being one of living in "harmony" I would ask for proper citations (from historians who have studied these periods and specifically are acknowledged as being experts on the Armenian condition with the Ottoman EMpire and regarding relations between Armenians and Turks/Ottoman Government etc) and a better explanation for what you mean by the word "harmony". Regarding your point 2. It has been more then established that "genocide" is the correct term - here and within academia. I would suggest you take the time to read over the archives concenring discussions we have had about this issue and the support that has been referenced. If you are not willing to do this I will save you the time and tell you that your point #2 is a non-issue. Further I find your explanation for the numbers of people who reject the term "genocide" to be rather unconvincing and unsupportable. Again it is my contention that if we were to list relevant scholars her by their acceptance or non-acceptance of ther term (and of the basic facts as presented in the article here itself) that there would at least be a 200 to 1 margine of acceptance versus denial. Point 3 - this is supposed to be a factual article based upon actual academic discourse and presentation. I would suggest that it might be more appropriate for you to participate in a creative writing class. Here you could pretend that you are an Armenian who rejects the known facts and instead believes that he is an assassin of Turks - following in the age old tradition of Armenian "backstabbers". Additionally you can imagine a world without Jews (as I assume that you believe that the Holocaust was indeed a genocide and that the only way it can be seen as such is if it were 100% succesful in killing every member of the target race/group. And funny that you calim that Turks would have killed each and every Armenian f they had wished to as other Turkish comentators have used the excuse of Ottoman ineptitude to claim that they could not possibly have killed as many as is claimed (as they in fact did). Point 4 - again another work of fiction. Point 5 - By all means I urge ou to create such a page - "the so-called Armenian Genocide" - I am very curious in regards to its contents and I would imagine it to be a sort of litmus test for Wikipedia - so I support your proposal as an expirement - by all means go ahead and do such a thing. Point 6 - Now I here I certainly disagree with you. The article "denail of the Armenian Genocide" obviously needs serious beefing up and should begin with events of 1915 itself - if not even early - when the Sultan denied that he ever killed any Armenians at all...etc - yes much to be added here I think... Point 7 - I am all for a thorough treatment of the extermination of these various indigenous peoples and for relaince on the scholarly efforts of our day to properly characterize such. I have to disagree that the Armenian Genocide article is too long. As support I present you. Obviously the presentation needs to be better and more detailed as you seem to have read the article but still seem have no clue whatsoever what the Armenian Genocide is/was all about.--THOTH 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not irrelevant. Everyone should see Armenians lived 1000 years within Turkish states and how they were free. We still live in Turkey. Turks are probably the most friendly people of the world. Even after what my people did to them.

2. And this is the way to find it? :) You know better then me. Please tell me how many people in the world believe in an Armenian Genocide giving the facts, and how many does not believe. So, what is Wikipedia for? Changing the idea of the majority by manipulating and manipulating.

3,4,5&6. "Denial" is part of a Genocide act. Opposite article for the "Armenian Genocide" can not be "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". As more people in the world believe that these things were not genocide, the article could be called "Denial of the So Called Armenian Genocide". Majority's choice. Wikipedia should stick to it.

7. Again, I would call those a Genocide not what happened in 1915-1918. Gokturkler 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is the wrong place for this kind of proposal. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This encyclopaedia is created by editors working in good faith to compile verifiable sources of repute into a comprehensive picture, not trying to promote our own conclusions. That the Armenia genocide happened is not in serious dispute, and this article represents the positions of the reliable sources on it in a reasonable way. WilyD 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To 88.106.61.112

I do not agree with adding that link, while it is true it is the governments official position, it is in Turkish, only Turks will understand it. There was in the past English language sites, what happened with the prior sites? Who removed all the sites there? Fad (ix) 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is a wrong usage as editors of this page all do propaganda on here! they wrote about everything bad about Turkey... but i can not see anything about ASALA in the front page! so this page does not reflect the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.18.238 (talk • contribs)

To Whom It May Concern

In this article, How come there is no information about Armenian bandits -dead squads- who massaccred innocent Turks? Celaloglan 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyting concerning Van cats here either...or any discussion of Turkish coffee or Lukum...I imagine we could just make this a thoroughly comprhensive article concerning anything and everything about the Ottoman Empire from the 15th century onwards - but for now this is an article about the Armenian Genocide and as such we should restrict its content to inrormation directly pertaining to the subject --THOTH 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. In order to understand the forced deportations of Armenians (Armenian massacre-genocide or whatever you wanna call it), one should look at the underlying reasons and logic behind it (let us be honest, the reasons that have been described in this article are somehow biased-). Only then, we will have a clear picture of what really happened, why it happened and who are the responsible parties. Celaloglan 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the bias in the reasons for the massacre/genocide, and how do you think it should be dealt with? What information is missing and needs to be added, and can you attribute it to reliable sources, without original research? Aecis^Brievenbus 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the underlying reasons and logic behind it are important. The Turkish scholar Ayla Göl wrote a paper about it titled: "Imaginning the Turkish nation through 'othering' Armenians." (Nations and Nationalism 11 (1), 2005, 121-139), there is also another Turkish scholar, Bora işyar(notr, Bora prefer using the term "elimination" rather than genocide), who wrote a paper which is a good complement (The origins of Turkish Republican citizenship: the birth of race, Nations and Nationalism 11 (3), 2005, 343-360). There is also of course the theories on the nationalisation of economy, which is covered in Avioglu work. There are a couple of other Turkish scholars who wrote on the rational behind the decision. If you mean to say the Turkish government justifications and those scholars who adhere to it, then probably Kamuran Gurun book, which has become a classic, could go in its respectif section(Turkish government), developping the rationals, it contains Enver telegram behind, on the law on the measures taken by the military against those opposing the government implementations during wartime. Fad (ix) 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all IT is called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide researcher Hilmer Kaiser essentially states that if one is not willing to adopt the proper terminaology one should not even be discussing the subject at all. And if I were you before suggesting that other contributors have been dishonest I would examine oneself and your own beliefs. As for your contention that "Armenian bandits -dead squads- who massaccred innocent Turks" should be considered an underlying reason for (lets let you fill in the blank properly now) I suggest that you read Holocaust survovor and genocide scholar Robert Melson. In his Revolution and Genocide he directly addresses this very issue - what he calls the "provocation thesis" and he thoroughly rejects it as a cause for the Armenian Genocide. Likewise researchers such as Dadrian, Kaiser, and Akcam (and others) independently examine this issue and conclude that the rational given by certain CUP and CUP apologists that claim military necessity or such (which I assume you are claiming here) was false. And after the war the head of the Ottoman Parliment (Rheza? may have the name wrong but I can provide the exact quote of needed) declared essentially that if in fact the Ottoman Government was concerned with Armenian bandits or such it was incumbant upon them to deal with these criminals - but this is clearly not what occured. The CUP targeted the entire Armenian people (for elimination from Anatolia) - and not because of any military necessity or because these populations were revolting out of control (as secret German dispatches clearly prove that this was not the case) but due to a policy decided upon by the CUP Central Commitee - where they then waited for the right circumstances - war - to carry it out. The facts and the scholarly record bares these facts out. I am all for examination and presnetation of the environment in which the Genocide took place and the factors that influenced the decision by the CUP leadership to purseu such things and the willingness of many of the Turkish people to participate in such thigs - but come now - get your facts straight before you make wild (and entirely politically motivated and unproven) accusations.--THOTH 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fad(ix)

Thank you for your comments. I would check the Ayla Göl and Bora işyar’s references. About the Avioglu’s work, theories on the nationalisation of the economy during that time period doesnt sound that plausable. While fighting in many frontiers, nationalisation of the economy, is like shooting yourself from the leg. As you mentioned in your reply, Kamuran Gürün’s has the book called ‘The Myth of Innocence Exposed’. Here is a link incase you or anybody else is interested some more related books. http://www.armenianreality.com/armenianbooks/books.htm

Dear User:Aecis,

When I read this article it’s implied that

during the Ottoman times, Armenians were counted as second class citizens, and Turkish people were violent in nature(William Ramsay quote),

For NO given reason, CUP Central Committee passed the Temporary Law of Deportation, giving the Ottoman government and military authorization to deport anyone it "sensed" as a threat to national security.

A special organization – consist of common criminals !- was then founded to carry out the mass murder and deportations of Armenian population.

I have read this article again and again. And I still don’t see any given LOGICAL or TWISTED reason WHY CUP leadership decide to pursue such a thing?

I am scientist. First thing I have learned in my education is being skeptical, asking questions and trying to understand the underlying reasons & logic behind any event.

I think it would be best for now to start with including a paragraph in this article about What would be the underlying reasons of this deportation law. or WHY CUP decided to pursue such a thing.

We can start using the references that Fad(ix) provided in his message as a begining point.

Maybe in the aftermath section we should also mention what happened the CUP leadership committe afterwards.

Celaloglan 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why, the same reasons that all genocides have been carried out through modern history. Because they saw the group as an internal enemy. The emerging nationalists in the late Ottoman goverment wanted to solidify Anatolia as the last stronghold of a dissolving empire and secure it as a Turkic homeland. The empire was being invaded from all sides, and the Ottoman leadership was willing to do anything to defend against occupation, even exterminate an ethnic population it thought might side with invaders. Talat's experience with Russian-Armenian soldiers on the eastern front probably had something to do with it, too. Yes, it probably would be ideal to put in a little more about the CUP's motivation, but let us not confuse motivation with justification.

I think this is already mostly covered in the planning paragraph of the Implementaion section. The Myotis 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Myotis - I (meaning my knowledge obtained from reading a wide variety of source material on this subject) don't entirely agree with you on the reasons/rational for the Armenian Genocide - your explanation could be considered true in part - but the reality is a bit more complex. (And I'm not sure I'm up to providing a full discourse at this point in time but I will at least attempt to introduce some points). And before I do I want to first suggest to Celaloglan to do a bit of research on the CUP program of the "National Economy" which was enacted in 1913 (prior to the war) in an attempt to create (force the creation) of a Muslim Turk merchant class (at the expense of Christians who had come to basically control the majority of commerce in the Empire). To do this they enacted policies where Christian (primarily Greek) businesses were boycotted (and terrorized and worse - up to 500,000 killed!! 1913/14 - oh yes - and more driven out) while contracts and business were steered to Muslim/Turkish owned firms (many of which sprung up upon eviction and take over from former Christian owners). OK - reasons for the Armenian Genocide (in 25 words or less sort of thing). The crumbling/disfunctional Ottoman Empire created an environment where minority groups at the fringes were shaking off Ottoman control and oppression and ousting Turkish overlords and colaborators (Turks and locals who converted to Islam) creating influx of refugees (stressing an already broke system), corruption and failure (to change/adapt) of Ottoman system exacerbated these problems along with loss of foriegn wars/territories, rising nationalism among (all) ethnic groups - and rise of Turkish identity that was based upon Muslim/Turkish tradtional social/power superiority vis a vis other elements (primarily Christian) of the Empire with great resentment for failing fortunes - blame/scapegoating of Christians - whose rising economic & social status was highly resented (& opposed by most Muslims/Turks) and for Empires failures (increasingly expressed along religious/racial lines) and desire to enact "revenge" for losses and humiliations (note - great majority of Turkish nationalists including CUP came from fringe areas of Empire where territory losses occured [Balkans, Caucasia, Southern Russia]). Sultan massacres and repression vs Armenians in late 19th century were crude attempt to forestall rising Armenian economic and social "independence" within Ottoman Empire and to enforce traditional socio-political (Muslim superiority) norms (keep uppity Gavurs in their place!). CUP revolution was culmination of Turkish disatisfaction with failure of Sultanate and of deteriorating conditions in Empire. While initially containing all manner of reform (and even liberal) minded political activists (even Armenian Dashnaks in coalition) - the revolutionary ascendency of the xenophobic exlusionary Pan-Turkic elements (very much like the German Nazis in so many ways...) who concieved of a primarily violent political and economic solution to the nations problems led to both Ottoman involvement in WWI - with the intention of reclaiming "lost" territories (and Empiric granduer) vis a vis Russia - and to the Armenian Genocide. Armenians - first and foremost - but other Christians of the Empire as well - had come to be seen by the CUP as "other" - as non-Turkic non-Muslim elements that conflicted with the Muslim and then increasingly Pan-Turkic identity and aspirations of the CUP (who had become highly radicallized and xenophobic for a variety of reasons). The CUP (and Muslim Turks in general - particularly those former refugees who suffered at the hands of Orthodox Christians) had come to resent Christians in their midsts - come to see them as essentially "foreign" - scapegoated them for the problems of the Empire (CUP was looking for blame for failure to fix problems etc) - they resented the prosperity and social uppityness that the Christains had obtained (partially through capitulations process) and in particular had grown tired of Armenians petitioning for outside help for reforms and such. So the CUP began to concieve of a program to solve the "Armenian Question" and that of the Christian minorities through violence (with an eye as well - very much so - to appropriating the Christian properties and wealth for themselves). Another significant factor in the attitude of desperation of the CUP was the recognized greed of the European powers to carve up the Ottoman Empire which had been in decline for centuries. Through the war - and the abrogation of the capitulations - the CUP hoped to reverse the downward course of the Empire, free it from debt and "solve" the minority problem once and for all (that in their view - and perhaps rightly so - potentially threatened the integrity of the Empire itself). Thus WWI involvement on the side of the Germans and the Genocide. And while the primary/overiding intent of the CUP was to eliminate the Armenians as a political presence in the East where they both posed a block to connection with Turks to the East and where they might ultimatly be able to establish a "nation" state of their own (thus "deportation" and breaking up of tradtional population concentrations - and certainly with death and violence being a major vehical for this -documented through CUP central commitee deliberations even as early as 1910/11) - the ease at which the "problem" could be dealt with through mass slaughter quickly lent itself to become an end in itself. The CUP was composed of very hardened and ultimatly evil men - in the very same ways of the Nazis in Germany in WWII - who likewise were able to de-humanize their conception of their victims and rationalize that what they were doing was for the greater good for the state and the "race". These factors - and the environment leading up to such that allows for ush "otherness" and de-humanization are vital factors to allow for genocidal campaigns. Certainly this glosses over a great deal of specifics and detail - but in effect I think provides a basic explanation that is more or less fully supported by the mainstream scholarly community.--THOTH 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To Celaloglan - Well, you could start an article for "Turkish & Kurdish Genocide by Armenians" or "Mass Killing of Turks and Kurds by Armenians"; and describe the events you have mentioned there. This wouldn't be a fork as you are describing events separate from those mentioned on this page. Takhisis 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes in Madeupfictionepedia. Unfortunatly for you no real scholars advocate what you claim - that there was any "genocide" of Turks or Kurds or "Mass killing" of Turks on the part of Armenians. Not even McCarthy claims this. His claim is that there was "civil war" and "rebellion and revolt" and he and others talk of the presence of Armenians with Russian troops and as 5th column elements behind the Ottoman lines. Problem is boys - well the factual evidence just does not support these claims - and even McCarthy has been forced to admit this. There is quite a bit of difference between the presence of armed Armenian gangs (who were a few among many during the decades prior to WWI) who commited sporadic violence, robberies and massacres of villagers and some effort on the part of "Armenians" to commit genocide against Turks or such. No such proof exists for the latter - it is entirely a false construct. Not even the Nationalist government tried to claim such things at Lusuanne and certainly the Ottomans did not claim such at the paris conference in 1919 nor at any other time - nor do Ottoman military correspondences show such and so on and so forth. And while admitedly Armenians deserted from the ranks of the ottoman Army (as did Kurds in arguably much greater numbers) and they certainly did tend to join up with the russians when able and these Russian troops (with Armenians - mostly Russian Armenians) did commit some wartime atrocities very little of this violence in fact occured prior to the period of the Armenian Genocide where it could have legitimatly been used as justification for it. Even McCarthy has been forced to admit that most of the Armenian violence he is talking about occured 1917 and after and by irregular forces - no Armenian army per se. Likewise very little of substance can be presented that details Armenina 5th column activity behind Turkish lines as it really was a non-factor - it was something made up to justify actions the CUP already planned to take and even the supposed killings of Muslim/Turks by Armenians during this period can often be shown (through Ottoman Army as well as german and other reports) to have been CUP "Special Organization" bands out of control and not Armenians at all (even though CUP officials such as Shakir used instances of such to spread propoganda against Armenians). The claim of mass Armenian revolt can as well be shown to be spurious - consisting instead of a few very isolated instances - most of which (such as Van) were seriously misrepresented by the CUP for anti-Armenian propoganda purposes and in fact many can be shown (by way of eyewitness accounts) to have been the result of direct Turkish provocations and as a result of resistance to massacre/slaughter itself. So in fact what are we left with? Turkish historian hlil Berketay estimates that over this entire period - to include until 1923 - "Armenians" probably killed no more then 10,000 to perhaps 20,000 Muslims/Turks. OK - not an inconsequential figure - but neither can this be called a civil war or a mass killing of Turks such as the 1 million plus Armenians who were deliberatly killed in a systematic manner by direction of the CUP/Ottoman government. These deaths were the result of war and the typical (though still abhorrent) wartime atrocities that did occur - particularly with irregular troops - and much of this was revenge killing on the part of Armenians who had lost everything. The key point is that neither the historical record of corraborated eyewitness accounts nor the greater (non-Turkish) scholarly community supports such charges as genocide by Armenians or mass killings by Armenians against Turks or such. What did occur needs to be properly understood and not just bandied about for what it is not. And the only real contrroversy about these events among the scholarly community proper is when the CUP made its decision to commit genocide - not that it did so - and the degree to which it was decided upon at the get go versus how the policy may have evolved over time. And these Turkish counter claims are universally dismissed as unhistorical propaganda as they run counter to observations and the facts of the day.--THOTH 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion above Thoth. I think it would be perfectly good article as long as it is properly sourced. I don't think this should be an issue; though needs work and time. Any takers guys? I'm bit too busy in my real life; we are expecting a baby and it is quite hectic now. Takhisis 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I could only read the start and end of your opinion first. Suggest you break your argument to a few paragraphs - it makes it difficult to read. I read the middle now; good arguments. I believe there is a case for a separate article; we know at the very least some (many?) villages were burnt with their entire population. This would be enough to classify the events as mass killings. Title doesn't matter too much anyway; it could be named Armenians Revolts & Atrocities to Muslim Population even. Takhisis 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you really read (and understand) what I wrote? I really don't think that a seperate article for either Armenian "revolts" or "mass killings" or "Atrocities" can be supported. The "revolts" per se were really quite limited and were directly tied to attempts on the part of Ottoman authorities/officials to masacre and otherwise disenfranchise communities (direct action in commiting genoicde against these communitees). As for "mass killings" and "atrocities" commited by "Armenians" I don't think that 10-20,000 killed (if that) over a period from 1914-1923 could necissarily be considered "mass killings" seen in the context of war of the time and place and considering the inability to clearly attribute these deaths/killings (many/most of which were done in the context of Russian military activity and others by Armenian irregulars) - each of these more appropriatly covered within articles concerning WWI and military actions occuring in the Caucuses in the post WWI period related to the Turkish War of Independence and military actions surrounding the attempts by the fledgling Armenian State (post 1918) to defend itself from Turkish aggression. Thus in no way could I see legitimacy in independent articles called "Armenian revolts" or "Armenian mass killings or atrocities against Turks" each of which can only be correctly dealt with in their proper context. And of course this talk page and article that we are discussing is concerned with the Armenian Genocide and there is much more of relevance to do here to better describe the planning (rational - to include political environment etc in the Empire during/prior to this period), process, enactment (specific documented actions against the Armenians and by who) as well as better description of how it is we know these events to be factual (through documentation of eyewitness testimony). It is these areas where I think more effort needs to be made to make this article more exacting and informative.--THOTH 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, <Personal attack removed> from your insane remarks above it is clear to me that anything that is even remotely moslem past or present in your mind is analogous with evil, that no massacres of moslems by your angelic orthodox christian brotheren ever took place at any time in history and that the massacres of armenians (repeat after me, MASSACRES, NOT GENOCIDE) were worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews (not only is that suggestion of yours totally absurd but more importantly insulting and degrading to the memory of the 6 million Jews that perished). The moronic suggestion that the Armenian massacres are even remotely comparable to the GENOCIDE of the JEWS is absurdity at its extreme, its a classic example of the pure and simple provocation and hatred that you and your kind fester towards Turks and moslems. I know that its hard for you to digest the truth but just pop a blue pill and relax because nothing and I mean nothing that you (especially you) say will ever change the realities regarding this subject. Just because there are a zillion Turk haters out there that claim a genocide occurred does not make it the truth unless you live in North Korea, Iran, Cuba or Venezuela where what ever the guineas feed you is taken at face value. And please, don't bother to respond because I don't have the luxury of wasting time reading your novellas lutherian 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a personal attack from the above post. Please comment on the content, not on the contributor. Comment on what THOTH has to say, don't insult THOTH himself. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that this legacy of the Turkish people upsets you and many other Turks so - but I cannot go back and change history and believe me I wish that I could. Anyway these are not my ideas but a compolation of scholarly thought/writings on this issue. I don't appreciate the name calling and ad hominum attacks. If you can't take the truth I suggest that you go and think happy thoughts somewhere else. And one last point - regarding the entirely legitimate comparison between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - the fact of only tens of thousands of Armenians left in Anatolia after a few brief years of (heavily eyewitnessed and thus proven) massacre and genocide where there once were 2 million or more is well proof of the genocidal impact of these actions upon the Armenian community in Anatolia at the very equivilent nature to that decimation which occured to the European Jews during WWII. You may not like the reality of this or the shame that it brings to your people - but it is fact and you crying about it and denying it changes it not in the least.--THOTH 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah Gül's statement

Denizz (talk · contribs) added the following sentence to the lead of the article.

Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül stated that "... but when you call it "genocide," you have to find another terminology for the Jews that were killed in Germany before and during World War II.

I removed this, with the edit summary "Revert, Gul's remark isn't notable enough for the intro. It may be added to the section on the position of Turkey". As outlined in Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead of the article "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I believe that the remark by Gül is too specific and not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Again per Wikipedia:Lead section: "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article. A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead." I believe that the relative weight of this statement is not enough for the intro, and it wasn't even "mentioned after the lead."
Makalp (talk · contribs) reverted me, with the edit summary "notable as -atleast- like others." I then moved the sentence from the lead of the article to the section Armenian Genocide#The position of the Turkish government, with the edit summary "Abdullah Gül statement moved to "The position of the Turkish government"; too specific for the lead. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points..." "
Denizz then left a message on my user talk page, saying: "I think that quote should stay with the previous sentence clause for NPOV issues. The current place is fine, if that sentence clause is removed. (comparison to Holocaust )" In other words, the statement by Gül was added in response to the previous sentence of the lead section, "The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust." Denizz indicates in the last sentence of his message that he can live with Gül's statement being in the section Armenian Genocide#The position of the Turkish government if the statement that the Armenian Genocide "often draws comparison with the Holocaust" is removed from the lead section.
I would like to request the input of other editors on this matter. Should the phrase about the Holocaust comparison be followed by Gül's response to this? Should the phrase about the Holocaust comparison be removed from the lead? Denizz and I would like to ask each and all responding to this to be as concise as possible, for the sake of intelligibility. I will remove the statement from the article for now. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding something to the effect that the Turkish government reject any comparaison with the Holocaust could be relevent, I think Gul is a little to much specific in the intro. Fad (ix) 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I have to admit I have no idea what Gul is trying to say - its a bit too obtuse for me (besides we have been over this many times already - Armenian Genocide meets all criteria for being a genocide - as is overwhelmingly supported by scholars and in fact is part of the definition of the word - ie Armenian Genocide was used to describe what was meant by the term by Lemkin - the develper of it). Secondly I rather doubt that we would include a quote by Goering denying the Holoucast to the beginning of that article so Gul certainly doesn't belong here. Third - this isn't missiles in Cuba for missiles Turkey - I don't understand how we can bargain over inclusion of a very relevant and factual statement that "the Armenian Genocide often draws comparison to the Holocaust" with some random gobdlygook statement of opinion made by some irrelevant Turkish government official.--THOTH 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gül is trying to say that if the Armenian Genocide is a genocide, the other genocides need to be renamed, because the Armenian Genocide cannot be compared to those. Or something to that extent. Like Fadix, I think that Gül's statement might be a little too specific for the intro, although Turkey's rejection of the comparison might be appropriate. But Abdüllah Gül, the Turkish Foreign Minister, deputy prime minister and former prime minister, is not "some irrelevant Turkish government official." Aecis^Brievenbus 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the fact that Turkey rejects charges of genocide and comparisons with the Holocaust already promionatly featured in the article - I sure think it is. I think the Turkish rejection is more then sufficiently dealt with in the article - certainly more then it desrrves to be considering the facts and considering what most scholars believe to be the truth. I honestly feel that through intentions to apear "balanced" and to present all sides etc - we are in fact in danger of misrepresenting the denial of this genocide and assisting in advocating the denial itself by giving the apearence of legitimacy to these non historically accurate non-scholarly views and I fear we will be establishing a precident for the presentation of other genocides in Wikipedia. We would be doing a better service I think to do a better job presenting Armenian Genocide denial for what it is. --THOTH 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Turkish rejection of the concept of genocide and of the Holocaust comparison is featured prominently in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead, since the lead "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." If the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide is relevant (it is) and is featured prominently (it is), it should be mentioned in the lead. A notable denial of a seemingly undeniable truth is still a notable denial, and should therefore be mentioned. Notability matters, not factual correctness. Verifiability, not truth. Mentioning a notable position does not mean endorsement of that position. Wikipedia shouldn't ignore a notable position for the reason that it's factually incorrect, because that is not a criterion for inclusion. We do not "assist in advocating the denial", and we do not "give the apearence of legitimacy" to the denial, by mentioning that some people and at least one country hold these views. I can understand that it may be tempting to inject a personal opinion or a sidenote in response to denial of the genocide, but that would be both original research and pov. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aecis I understand (and agree with) your position here - that if "notable" it should be mentioned and as much as possible introduced. But it is my contention that the Turkish objections are both mentioned and featured if anything with more emphasis then requirred to meet the letter of this intent and that we are infact moving toward over emphasis if we are not already there.--THOTH 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to adress this supposed point that Gul (and others who deny that the term "genocide" is appropriate) are trying to make here (and the absurdity of such a contention. And for this genocide researcher Hilmar Kaiser has stated it best: "The Armenian genocide is the Ottoman government's answer to the Armenian Question...I use the word `genocide' because it adequately describes the phenomenon. It's the only term we have that describes it. If one day we have a better word, fine. The English, German, and Turkish languages have only one word to describe. That this has a negative consequence on the Turkish government is something I can't change; I can't change history. I'm not prepared to haggle over it. If a Turkish scholar says it too politicized and he or she doesn't want to use the word, then let him/her take a different subject. If you want to be part of this debate, apply proper terminology and if you don't want to do it, you aren't a scholar." Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, in interview with Khatchig Mouradian (24 September 2005) published in Aztag Daily Newspaper--THOTH 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First I removed the comparison to Holocaust because we discussing it as well. I want to keep this as short as possible. I will first need to reply this. I don't know how much a German expert of Armenian genocide Hilmar Kaiser is, but claims like 'you aren't a scholar if you do not accept the term genocide' are not very scholarly, are in fact very anti-scholarly. Having the same opinion with a scholar does not make that opinion much better, it might make it notable. Considering the 69 academics, I am not sure about that most Western historians agree on the term, even if one of them says so, as that would be his/her opinion, apparently not a well researched thing. I don't have the book now, I will comment on it later, if I don't forget. One thing is we had to change the referenced material, which I don't like, as it makes me think that that reference is not reliable. I agree with Aecis with most of everything else.

Apparently we have at least two definitions of genocide, first a legal one, by which this will never be a genocide, second a political one, what the parliaments of some countries accept for instance (I am not sure of a scientific one yet). Taking into account what is called and what is not called a genocide (like Congo, native Americans, several aborigine communities, Algeria, etc), I think it is the latter one. This has many implications, one is that a statement of leading politician that is in a position to state a country's opinion is worth a mention. Besides, please check the bibliography section. I have worries about that section as well. For instance, is the Armenian research center the only notable research center, it is way too overrepresented. deniz^T_C

"first a legal one, by which this will never be a genocide"...perhaphs we need to remind you of the technical definition of genocide. Acording to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide a genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Would you mind pointing out which part, exactly, exempts Armenians from this definition? The Myotis 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as definitions for "genocide" are concerned I think that there are perhaps two or probably three that might need to be considered. The first, of course, is that of the person who came up with the word in the first place - R Lemkin (which might be referred to as the narrow version), the second would be the verion of the concept as accepted and laid out by the United Nations (the inclusive version - as it seems to cast quite a wide net concerning what might be considered as "genocide") and the third that I recommend is that of scholar Robert Melson as he defines degrees of genocide to include particl and total based upo impact on victim population. As the Armenian Genocide clearly meets all of these criteria - and has consistently been proven by all manner of research and analysis and review (including recent [2003] TARC [Armenian - Turk] sponsored ICTJ review) to do so I would really hope that deniers like you would be a bit less cavalier and give it up already. Likewise referring to the 69 scholars who signed onto this advertisement taken out by a Turkish Government sponsored denial organization - Genocide scholar Israel Charney has conducted a rather extensive analysis of these individuls and concluded that the vast majority obtained direct Turkish Government funding for their researches, and unlike the 126 Holocaust scholars who signed a petition for recognition of the Armenian Genocide - very few of the academics the Turks came up with could be shown to have anything but a casual (not a scholarly) knowledge of this subject or period of history. There was also some debate as to the actual positions of many of these 69 academics, some who claimed that their name on the list did not in fact represent their views. So again, like much of the Turkish denial, once the fog of it all is cleared away we can see it for what it is - an attempt to divert attention from the real facts. Likewise, one can find very few actual scholarly (peer reviewed and such) works that support the denialist position. Academia has clearly come down on the side of recognition and has done so with overwhelming historical support. The denail is proven to be pure politics and misrepresentation.--THOTH 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that it will be sometimes accepted by a universal court as a genocide? At least now it isn't, and I don't think it will ever be. deniz^T_C 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't believe that any court is "universal", second, I don’t think this particular case has ever been tried, and third, you are ducking the question. What exactly exempts AG from the stated definition is what I would like to know and why you are so certain it will never be accepted? The Myotis 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think Deniz meant this:

The Armenian "genocide" can only sold by propaganda (like this wiki-article Armenian Genocide, see above under External links). There are no other ways. No one international court will recognize the Armenian "genocide" (1915 was before 1948 when the Genocide Convention was approved in the UN). The Armenian propaganda can only have support from christian parliaments and scientists with unscientific and hidden agenda's like Akcam&Co.Chonanh 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Myotis, I missed what you wrote. I agree with one sentence of Chonanh above, it won't be accepted as a genocide by any international court, if for nothing else, b/c the events happened decades before the law passed. Also, the people were punished. One of them was even killed by an Armenian and the guy got away it in a court where those fake (?) telegraphs were used. Turkey, which overtoppled Ottomans, did not gain anything by it (no Swiss golds etc, not the territory either, unless you claim that Armenians would have sided with Russians), eastern borders with Russia are partly a result of the Russian revolution. Eastern boarders with Iran were already fixed centuries ago. deniz^T_C 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that no person or nation can be convicted of genocide, being that the responsible entities are long dead. I suppose we could get a court to rule that the event was genocide, and I don’t know what Iran and Russia's borders have to do with this, we are talking about a definition, not reconciliation. However, I don't think that any court has ruled an event's definition without prosecution, and if they would bother. All I was saying was that it matches the legal definition, and that should be enough for anybody. The Myotis 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Yapp

Note 61, about Malcolm Yapp as one of the Western scholars denying or doubting that the events constituted a genocide, currently reads: "Emeritus Professor Malcom Yapp, Middle Eastern Studies (MES) journal Oct 96, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p 395, 3p." This seems to refer to an article in the Middle Eastern Studies Journal. Does anyone have access to that article? If so, could you add the title of the article to the reference in accordance with Template:Cite journal? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Makalps disruptive tags

Stop adding tags and blindly reverting back without even discussing. You better write a 10 page essay if you intend to back up the addition of those tags. Discuss your grievances on the talk page!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

Please do not engage in edit wars and back-and-forth reverting. If it is clear that your edit is being opposed (and it should be clear after about two dozen reverts just today), use this talk page to discuss possible changes to the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the claim (by one now gone - pity) that my participation in this talk page is preventing editing of the article is a spurious one eh?--THOTH 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another rant

I would like to use this message to clarify a frequent misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a collection of human knowledge, or rather a reflection of the current state of human knowledge. We combine what reliable sources and relevant people have written about a subject (secondary sources) with relevant first-hand information (primary sources) into encyclopedia articles (tertiary sources). We are bound by what those sources have said. As said in Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia: "We require that sources be cited for all significant claims, and we do not permit editors to publicize their personal conclusions when writing articles. Editors must follow a neutral point of view; they must only collect relevant opinions which can be traced to reliable sources." If the consensus among scholars is that something took place, we say that it took place and attribute that to those scholars. That's not the opinion of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has no opinion. We are not in a position to prove them wrong, that is not what Wikipedia is for. We're in the business of writing an authoritative summary of what relevant and notable scholars have said, but we don't enter into a debate with them. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is aimed at me, what I am worried about it is that what is written on the article may not be what is given in the reference. Unfortunately, I have seen those kind of misusage of references here on Wikipedia several times, and I am not sure that this one reflects what is in the reference correctly. The tag I want to add is {{not verified}}, bur this tag is for sections, I want to be able to put it after that particular sentence. Please if such a tag exists, replace {{dubious}} by that. Thanks. Without it being verified, the fact (?) that it is accepted by most scholars is also disputed. Like I said before, we have 69 academics who might not prefer the usage of the term genocide. Again, nobody debates the deaths of people, at least the deaths of Armenians, but the term 'genocide', apparently it is quite important, may be disputed. deniz^T_C 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of those 69 scholars do in fact agree that a genocide did take place. Most of them were duped into thinking that they were signing a something that would call for Armenia and Turkey to open their archives [6].--MarshallBagramyan 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Armeniapedia website uses there our "weasel words", who, how many? Also the Turkish side has had 'no doubt about the essential truth of the Armenian genocide', the fact that many people have died, either, as far as I know. And on unrelated note, why do we have this Armeniapedia, do you know? We already have Armenian wikipedia. deniz^T_C 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Israel Charney is not the author of Armeniapedia...--MarshallBagramyan 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

Hello People, I am brand new here. I was browsing through the Turkish sources about the genocide, I saw another "evidence" that disproving the genocide claims. The evidence is Hovhannes Katchaznouni. He was the first prime minister of the Armenian Republic in the first quarter of the 20th century. The Turkish thesis claim that Hovhannes Katchaznouni prepared a report regarding the genocide. In the report, he says that Armenians were misused by the Imperial Powers and the Turks had the right to exile them. etc.. Well I do not know the full detail of this man, I cannot find his books or reports. I thought, perhaps the wikipedians might provide me some insight about this new "evidence" coming from the Turkish side.. Does this report really do exist? If so, what is in the report?

Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.18.143 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I personally doubt such a report exists, and if it does, I doubt that it can be used to 'disprove' genocide, or (I am trying to interpret what you said) justify it. In any case, a source that is only rumored to exist is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The Myotis 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep I know that's irrelevant to wikipedia. I am just trying to find out the truth. I know the Turkish often comes with fake evidences, but I do check however. This time, it was not easy to verify if Hovhannes Katchaznouni really prepared a report like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.18.143 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Armenians (including women, children, elderly) were never "exiled" BTW...but marched to their deaths across the deserts and scrub with little or no food or water, gathered into death camps with neither food nor water, tied together and shot en mass, burned alive, drowned or otherwise killed in great numbers. All of this extensively eyewitnessed and thoroughly proven and accepted - yes. OK - so what can one say that "disproves" these facts? And what justification would you consider to be acceptable for this sort of behavior? Let us just say that in the 1960s it was discovered that the Soviet Union was supporting the Black Panther party in commiting violence and robbery against white people in San Fransisco - would this then be deemed sufficient justification and rational to march all Black people in the USA out into death valley in the middle of the summer with no food and water...and to outright kill any who were unwilling to go or when you just got to lazy to march them all off - etc? I am very interested in your answers to these questions. Upon examination can anyone claim justification for the (again eyewitnessed and fully accepted) actions taken by the CUP lead Ottoman Turkish Government during this period?--THOTH 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TROTH, you keep saying the same things. Remember, we have discussed these issues in the past. You write just as if you were there. You do not comment on Hovhannes Katchaznouni, but just lead the discussion to the same point which was not directly relevant to the main question. I don't think that a rumored source is irrevalant. We may check whether it exists or not. I have searched about it four months ago: http://www.armenianreality.com/An_Armenian_source_hovhannes_katchaznouni.html I haven't read the full text yet because of my exams. Read it and talk about it TROTH, nothing else.Caglarkoca 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below. I find your presentations of unscholarly and irrelevant assertions such as this to be tedious and time wasting. I addressed the substance of your claim to have found "new evidence" disproving the genocide. Why don't you (ever) address the substance of my comments? --THOTH 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caglarkoca,

I have found the following quote from the book that you have mentioned.

The following text extracted from http://itss.org/new/node/92

Statement of the First Prime Minister of The Republic of Armenia; He says there was not even massacre, let alone genocide..

"The war with us was inevitable... We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks...We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win. Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. ...In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost......the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector ....the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and there were not any massacres" The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic Published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave. New York 22 – 1955

Also, following text is explaning the point I was trying to make earlier.

ps. Dear User MarshallBagramyan, this is what 69 American Academicians accepted. Also, for your information The Ottoman Archieves are open to public. Can you tell us whether Armenian archieves open or not? Thank you.

.." As for the charge of "genocide," no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it CANNOT BE viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direction of serious inter-communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike." THE STATEMENT MADE TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY 69 AMERICAN ACADEMICIANS ON MAY, 19, 1985.

Celaloglan 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First - you two act as if this is some kind of newly discovered statement (Katchaznouni) which it is not. Second - this statement has absolutly nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide (but of the situation in 1919/1920 where the new state of Armenia was faced with an offensive from the Nationalist Turks under Gen Kazim Karabakir. Third - this is the stated opions of one man (a politician) whose words must be examined in the larger context of both what he was trying to say and why (political motivation vis a vis [other Armenian] political enemies). In any event it is of no relevance to the Armenian Genocide. You claim that it "disproves" the Armenian Genocide. My earlier comment addressed this absurd claim from another (valid) angle showing the impossibility of your claim (regardless). So enough said. And as for the 69 (so-called) scholars (once again). Israel Charney demonstrated the clear political (and economic) motives behind those signing this statment and the fact that few of them made any effort to substansiate or re-affirm the claim of the statement afterwords (leading doubt to the veracity of their belief). Furthermore, as I mentioned before, very few of these academics were or could in fact be considered to be historians of this period or scholars in the subject of genocide (or even politics/current events or what have you) to be considered to have any special insights or academic credentials to allow them to comment substantivly on this issue (again unlike the 129 Holocaust scholars who called for unconditional recognition of the Armenian Genocide based on known and academically accepted facts). Thus paid political propoganda brought to you by the state of Turkey and nothing more. Their obvious political statement in fact doesn't say much of anything factual pertaining to the genocide in any event. I mean one can say that there have been wars in Europe going back generations and many Germans have been killed over the centuries - however this truly say s nothing /does not directly address the facts of the Holocaust in any way. So anyway - it seems to me that it is far past time for disputing the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Your attempts will end in failure. We need to discuss pertintent issues of which these that you bring up are not. If I was a cynical person though I would say that you are accomplishing your purpose here regardless in that I surmise you don't truly want this article improved (in a factual manner) but instead are happy to be here pushing a purely political agenda whose ultimate purpose is to disrupt progress on this issue and in this article specifically. If you were honest you would not make so much of any issue with accepted historical facts and instead you would be more interested in revealing more information about these events and not disputing the (factually and academically) indisputable and wasting time here.--THOTH 07:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did Charny tell that about these 69 scholars? Can you give the source (and the exactly pages)? And can you give 5 examples (from these 69 scholars) of this allegations of Charny (+source +exact pages)?

And these 129 Holocaust scholars: are you sure they were all that kind of scholars? No novelists etc between them?

Don't forget the big picture:There are ten of thousands historians in the world that don't confirm an Armenian "genocide". Chonanh 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"There are ten of thousands historians in the world that don't confirm an Armenian "genocide". - really now? - please name even 20 non-Turkish historians that out and out deny the Armenian Genocide. As for Charney's follow up to the (so-called) 69 scholars who supposedly deny the Armenian Genocide - http://www.freewebs.com/deniarschallenge/document2.htm I would also suggest that you check out - Roger W Smith - Genocide and Denial; and Deborah E. Lipstadt - Deniers, Relativists, and Pseudo-scholarship, Dimensions, 6:1 (1991); and Israel W. Charny, The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides, in Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:13-15 --THOTH 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, both of those sources come from personal letters published in an "TURKISH student" society webpage. If you want anybody to believe that statement, you will have to find the primary source, published from a nonbiased source. Obviously this statement 'exists', but also obviously this particular source has an enormous probability of being fabricated. In fact, I cannot find information on the "Armenian Information Service Suite" anywhere, except for copiers of the same "quote". If you can find it, please let us all know. The Myotis 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

THOTH

I dit not imply that if the genocide did not happen. I certainly believe so, that it did happen. My aim was to verify if the Armenian political figure did really compose a report like that. Because often the Turkish side comes out with new stuff in order to disprove or refute the genocide allegations. And most of the time, the new stuff are to be meant to justify the genocide or to imply that it was inevitable. And some of the documents that the Turkish "historians" provide are, even, plain fake. Why I am saying this, because I am fairly new to the topic. All I wanted to learn is Hovhannes Katchaznouni's stance. Did he really compose that report. What says the repot? What does the genocide scholars think about the content of the mentioned report? Kind Regards

I bet that this statement has to do not with the 1915 Genocide, but with the 1919 Turco-Armenian war, which was a different even. The statement needs to be taken into context. -AlexiusComnenus

you can download it here guys read it:

http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2005/08/about-contact-us-links.html

it is not about the Turkish-Armenian war. only reading the first 10 pages will show that to you. He says we were stupid to embrace russia as our saviour. it was wrong to create the voluteers army. The deportations would not have happened if we did not attack!!! Read your prime minister guys just read...

From the manifesto:« At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but had already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and, with especially, much uproar. Contrary to the decision taken during their general meeting at Erzurum only a few weeks before, the A.R.F. had [actively participated] in the formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey.

« In an undertaking of such gravity, fraught with most serious consequences, individual agents of the Transcaucasian A.R.F. acted against the wiIl of our superior authority, against the will of the General Meeting of the Party... In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organized themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain… from organizing and… fighting. This was (in) [sic.] an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation : that mentality should have found its expression, and did so. » (Pages 30 to 32) only these 3 pages burries your genocide claims...

Surprise, surprise, another Turkish website, one that states it is mirroring the famous 'Armeniantalltale' site. How come we never see this quote coming from any neutral sources? Also, even if we were to assume this quote was accurate and in context, do you really think that a few rebel organizations, regardless of what they did, justify the extermination of an ethnic group? Do you think it is right for a government to say 'some of them are dangerous, be we are not sure which, so they all must die'? Do you think that this would null the definition of genocide? Try finding a credible source.The Myotis 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

newest ref (genocide watch)

Something not so related, you can remove later, but I think it may stay:

Let me tell you this, if you want to send to Turkish prime minister a mail. It is not

TC Easbakanlik

Bakanlikir

It is

TC Basbakanlik   (better: T.C. Başbakanlık)

Bakanliklar   (better: Bakanlıklar)

deniz^T_C 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to send the Turkish PM mail? If one wished to express onseself to someone who mattered and/or could do something in Turkey about relevent issues (such as begging for the Turkish Army not to do something really stupid an invade Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan) - then you should be providing the email of the Turkish military Chief of General Staff.--THOTH 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a smart move? Another venomous remark from a notorious Turk hater. I suggest everyone ignores all comments from THOTH, he is like appenzeller cheese that has turned foul lutherian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all comments"...I don't suppose I am the only person who sees the irony in a statement like that coming from somebody who has yet to make a relevant comment or evidence-based argument. I would even venture a guess that reason he posts such aggressive comments is to prevent them from being ignored. Some people will do anything to get attention. The Myotis 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly seem to have caught your attention, how does it feel like to shoot yourself in the foot? lutherian 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you are only here to get attention? Yes, I realize that was your sole intent, but today is rather slow on this particular talk page and I am curious as to why you would pursuer such an unsatisfying endeavor. Posting insults on a talk page and desperately hoping for a response seems like a waste of time.The Myotis 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Desperately hoping for a response? hmmm that's probably why on several occasions I ask THOTH to kindly not to bother replying because I don't enjoy reading his novellas! BTW, if you find my remarks provocative, why do you bother to respond? lutherian 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find the amount of information and evidence Thoth posts to be too overwhelming, you are not required to read them. This page is not curtailed to your enjoyment, obviously. And if you would prefer I do not respond to your posts, that they remain ignored, then I am happy to comply. The Myotis 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you quite understood what I meant when I said that I would rather THOTH refrain from answering. It was with regards to his responses to my remarks. Don't worry, I certainly do not bother reading his long winded essays as I have come to discover (like many others over here btw) that it is a monumental waste of time. lutherian 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why bother asking someone to refrain from posting if you’re just going to ignore their posts. It would be like if I asked asking you to please not reply because I don’t enjoy reading baseless attacks and insults. After all, if the evidence is in your favor, why does it matter what people rant about? The Myotis 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? Ok, lets give it another shot, the reason why I asked him to refrain from answering is because he is too long winded with his answers. If he was straight forward and to the point instead of writing mini essays all the time I wouldn't ask him to refrain from responding. Capiche? I hope that's a little clearer now lutherian 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you dont read them why do you care what he writes? The Myotis 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Every country has the right under international law to intervene in other countries, in which people and movements exist who are causing damage to the former with the latter not being able to insure law and order in its own territory. Since PKK is recognized as terrorist and is causing problems in Turkey due to its activities in Iraq which the Iraqi government is incapable of stopping, Turkey has that right. I don't see why it would be "stupid" either. I have Turkish friends who have been to Iraq when they were in the army - Turkish army made more than 20 incursions into Iraq in the last ten years. It is not a "big news". Once it concerned nearly 100,000 soldiers and they went 250km inwards. In fact, :), there are 3000 Turkish soldiers in Northern Iraq as we speak. No, Turkey didn't just launch an invasion - they have been there for the last 15 years. Anyways, Turkey will enter there right after the pres elections as far as I know. But enough soapboxing. Baristarim 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about this. Anyway, Turkey is not US, it will not invade whole Iraq, it will just continue to have cross border operations (I think all countries have such right to secure their national integrity, also this might be part of treaty of Lausanne), or it can move a big army section near the border, which worked against Syria, though I don't know if it will work again. deniz^T_C 04:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, the occasional disinfection operation is a must, especially after being provoked by a turbin wearing, pockmarked guinea (Barzani for the uninitiated) lutherian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proof for the Armenian Genocide

Recently several editors have presented what they claim is disproof for the Armenian Genocide. Additonally there is constantly put foreward the claim that Armenians were only being "exiled" for their own good and that every effort and intention was made to take care of them so that they would arrive well and fed at their destinations - and that this claim of 1.5 million (or anything close) is a recent one made up by Diaspora Armenians and such- etc. Well I recently came accross a posating of a single article from the New York Times of this period that addresses all of these Turkish claims and I am interested in comment from this - specifically I am interested in how the Armenian Genocide can still be denied in the face of these sort of reports (of which this is one of many) - (my bolds BTW)

AID FOR ARMENIANS BLOCKED BY TURKEY Attempts to Send Food to Refugees Frustrated, Says the American Committee PUTS VICTIMS AT 1,000,000

Careful Survey Shows 55,000 Persons Killed in the Vilayet of Van Alone

November 1, 1915

The American Committee on Armenian atrocities, among the members of which are Cardinal Gibbons, Cleveland H. Dodge, Bishop David H. Greer, Oscar S. Straus, Professor Samuel T. Dutton, Charles R. Crane, and many other prominent citizens, issued a statement yesterday in which it was said that authentic reports from Turkey proved that the war of extermination being waged by the Turks against the Armenians was so terrible that when all the facts were known the world would realize that what had been done was "the greatest, most pathetic, and most arbitrary tragedy in history." A chance to furnish food to the Armenians, ordered deported to distant parts of the empire were blocked by the Turkish authorities, the committee said, the Turkish officials stating that "they wished nothing to be done that would prolong their lives. " In the statement the committee makes public its report received a few days ago from an official representative of one of the neutral powers, who, reporting on conditions in of one of these Armenian camps, says: "I have visited their encampment and a more pitiable site cannot be imagine. They are, almost without exception, ragged, hungry and sick. This is not surprising in view of the fact that they have been on the road for nearly two months, with no change of clothing, no chance to bathe, no shelter and little to eat. I watched them one time when their food was brought. Wild animals could not be worse. They rushed upon the guards who carried the food and the guards beat them back with clubs hitting hard enough to kill sometimes. To watch them one could hardly believe these people to be human beings. As one walks through the camp, mothers offer their children and beg you to take them. In fact, the Turks have been taking their choice of these children and girls for slaves or worse. There are very few men among them, as most of the men were killed on the road. Women and children were also killed. The entire movement seems to be the most thoroughly organized and effective massacre this country has ever seen." "They all agree," adds the committee, referring to the reports, "as to the method of procedure, the thoroughness and cruelty of the destructive work, and the confessed purpose of the plan to wipe out the Armenian nation. The fact that the central government at Constantinople refuses to permit Armenians to leave the country is a further evidence of their purpose of extermination. "The Turks do not deny the atrocities, but claim they are a military measure to protect them against a possible attack of a race that is disloyal..."--THOTH 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, put things into context boy, the members cited above are hard core christian fundamentalists and I don't know if you realize that it was during a time when the United States was considered an enemy of Turks, do I need to remind you that it took the United States a couple of years before it decided to recognize the republic of Turkey? lutherian 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Luther, what you just said is not true in the slightest.

• America was not an enemy of Turkey in 1915, the United States did not enter the war until 1917, and if you read the first couple of lines, you would have seen that the article was written in 1915. Consequently Americans missionaries, embassy personnel and even military officers were in Turkey during the 1915 Genocide. Many of the best accounts of the genocide are from Americans who were in Turkey at the time.
• Well obviously the US did not recognize the Republic of Turkey at this point as in 1915 the state we are talking about is still the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Republic was formed in the 1920s.
• Many of the people writing accounts of the Armenian Genocide were not Christian fundamentalists, such as the American Ambassador to Turkey, Mr. Mogenthau who was himself a Jew. Oscar Strauss above could also very well be a Jew judging from the name, although I can't say for certain.

-AlexiusComnenus

1. I was referring to the guineas at the American Committee on Armenian Atrocities, seems logical to me that most members of this hate group would be christian fundamentalists! 2. America does not need to enter a war to be an enemy, I don't think the U.S. was a friend of Germany when the Nazis decided to invade Poland, the U.S. entered the war very late, after a large amount of Jews were already killed! 3. As for recognition, read my comments carefully, it took the U.S. a couple of years before it recognized the Republic of Turkey which was founded in 1923. lutherian 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The jokes on you Lutherian. All of the accounts referenced in this NYT article are available in their original form - from the source - the actual eyewitnesses - with no reliance on the American Committee on Armenian atrocities needed. This is exactly why I posted this. Because I knew you would make an ad Hominem attack against the supposed source of this information when in fact the direct sources are unassailable (and in fact are primarily from German sources - when Germany was an ally with the Ottoman Empire - and not from US sources at all). So again you have shown your denial tactic (having nothing to do with the facts at hand) - which has nothing to do with the actual facts which you cannot contend. ie you lose. You are shown for exactly what you are. The bottom line is that you have no answer for these fatcs and the thousands of other accounts of this nature - which indeed do proove the Genocide for what it is and absolutly counter any attempt on the part of denilaists like you to claim that it wasn't so --THOTH 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So in fact what you are saying is that you concocted an elaborate trap just for me? Gee, I am truly flattered but doesn't this also prove my point that you really have nothing better to do in life? Au contraire, joke seems to be on you, LOL. lutherian 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this document should be included in this article

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/p_lordmayor.htm

It is from the British government of 1915 and in no uncertain terms describes the situation as it was. 217.114.124.241 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Genocide Memorial Picture

What happened to the image of the Genocide Memorial? It appears to have been deleted but I can't find a reason for that to have been done. 148.63.236.141 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about File:Armenia Tsitsernakaberd.jpg, it was deleted for copyright reasons per Commons:Deletion requests/Armenian Genocide memorial images. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the comments and the pdf linked from there, it seems the image should be legit.

"Article 16. Free use of the work located in open for attendance (public) places

Without the consent of the author and another copyright holder and without paying the author's remuneration it is permitted to reproduce, broadcast works of architecture, photography or figurative arts which are located in public places, with the exception of the cases when the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or broadcasting, and when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes."

It's oddly phrased in English, but the image is a work in a public place and Wikipedia is not commerical. Seems it should be allowed. The discussion seemed to assume that Armenia doesn't permit this,but reading the text, it seems to allow it when it is either a panoramic image OR when its non-commercial. 148.65.24.76 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't permit special licensing to Wikipedia - Images released only for non-commercial purposes are always deleted. Images need to be released under the GDFL, into the Public Domain or similarly freely licensed (such as when the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose) WilyD 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Content moved from the article

I moved the below material from the intro section according to NPOV#Undue weight. The position of a small minority should not take up the majority of the important intro section, but at the same time it is sourced and reasonably well written. Perhaps it could be useful elsewhere? The Republic of Turkey rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. Turkey also does not accept the deaths were the results of an intention from Ottoman authorities to eliminate Armenian people indiscriminately. Besides the disagreements, it acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, but counters that Turks died as well, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I. Turkey insists on using the word "relocation", but not deportation, when referring to Tehcir, as the destinations were then within the Ottoman Empire.

According to Ferguson, it is now widely acknowledged to have been the first true genocide. Some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide. To date twenty-one countries have officially recognized it as genocide. -- Karl Meier 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph which does not cover the 3% of the whole article becomes an issue?--OttomanReference 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the Turkish position on this issue isn't mentioned in the lead at all. I think it should be. It is covered in a substantial part of this article, it has an article of its own and it plays an important role in the relations between Turkey and the EU in particular. I think we should mention in the lead that Turkey rejects the applicability of the term/concept Genocide. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With the most recent changes the minority position is actually again being mentioned in the lead section, and this time, fortunately, not in what seems to in a direct violation of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. -- Karl Meier 23:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. It does not ask us to give an incomplete description of what might be a minority view. We are not going to say, oh we reached 50 characters, lets break the sentence here. What the lead is lacking is the Armenian position, the lead can be longer for an article of this size. Having the sentence "Besides the disagreements, it acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, but counters that Turks died as well, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I." in the lead is a must in my opinion. You can move the relocation part down, but I think it should stay here. deniz^T_C 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand anything. What WP:NPOV#Undue Weight is as the name indicate about that we should not give equal or more weight to minority opinions, such as holocaust denialism on the holocaust article or genocide denialism on this. If we give too much weight to the denialist opinions in the intro section, the problem is that we might risk to distort the readers understanding of the realities regarding this issue, and make them somehow believe that that the denialist position is accepted among the experts regarding these events. The denialism is notable and should properly be mentioned, but the amount of space dedicated to it in the important intro section, should be reflect these realities. -- Karl Meier 06:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would probably reword it to somthing more like "While the goverment of Turkey acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, it also states that Muslims died as well and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War.". For a two-paragraph introduction, I think two or three sentences is plenty. It may also be appropriate to mention that such statments are considered genocide denial by many in the introduction. The Myotis 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with that rewording. Like I said before, I think we should include what Armenia is saying. The BBC article might be helpful. And, people, please check the edits you are reverting before writing your edit summaries. deniz^T_C 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way we should quote anything from a BBC article. If you want to add anything, cite an established, uncontroversial expert. -- Karl Meier 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC is used all over Wikipedia as a reference. If you do not like the source, please tag it with vc, do not remove it. deniz^T_C 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also check the number of refs to Balakian (10, I guess), even more than Dadrian. deniz^T_C 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that policy including WP:RS is violated a whole lot of places, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't write this article according to policy. If you want to include something, use proper sources, and do not attempt to present the views of the vast majority of scholars as a specific "Armenian" view. Doing that is not just a violation of NPOV, it is to provide our readers with false information. -- Karl Meier 10:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is not RS about BBC? That article gives an overview of the subject, both in historical and modern perspective. In any case, I reverted you as well - the very least work with others insted of simply reverting. Deniz has been meticolously working and revising and trying to address points raised. You even reverted the dates on the expand tags!! Baristarim 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the sentence before that. It is the Armenian view. It should be presented as such. The scholarly view is not always that for instance 1.5 million people died, etc. Also that sentence is mostly from BBC's summary. To have NPOv, what we should write is things like that International Assoc of Genocide scholars accepted it as a genocide. If you want to insist on not having the Armenian view, please remove that para only. You can revert yourself, and I can remove that paragraph now. Ok, Baris di dthe revert, I am removing the paragraph. deniz^T_C 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you are not presenting a view that is specifically Armenian, but the concensus view among the vast majority of scholars. To present that view as something that is specific to Armenians makes sense in a Turkish nationalist context, but fact is that is just blatantly false. I will revert back to the last good version of the intro section. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur over the debate about the numbers. By the way Karl, pls stop overusing the Holocaust comparison - you know that the Holocaust denial bit is streaking on thin ice to become a straw man of some sorts in relation to this article.. Everyone knows that there has been much more debate and confusion here than about the Holocaust, about many aspects of the case, particularly in a larger historical perspective. The fact that it is recognized by most as genocide is mentioned amply in the intro, but the details do not make the unanimity among scholars (numbers, who did what, at which particular point etc) - for this reason, giving a statement of the primary Armenian discourse (eg 1.5mil died) is not out-of-place, on the contrary is clarifying. It also has a source which neatly summarizes the whole thing. Baristarim 11:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be controversial to compare it to another genocide? The Nazis 6 million Jews and 6 million others, the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians (and hundred of thousands of other non-Turks, but that is another issue)? The mass killings and the racism behind the crimes are similar. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the position and edits of Karl Meir here 100%. This is exactly what I have been saying for the past few months - we are absolutly giving undue evidence to the (Turkish Government sponsored) denial of the Armenian Genocide. Certainly we need to acknowledge this denial - as such - as denial of accepted truth/facts (ie it needs to be presented as denial - as the phenomonon of denial with some history and perspective to it as denial [perhaps/certainly elaborated in the denial article itself]) as well as - of course - present an overview of the specific position(s) taken by the Republic of Turkey (ie its official agencies and/or spokespersons and/or scholars associated with it). BUT - we certainly should not overemphaize such positions to give them greater legitimacy then they deserve. We need to focus on the known facts of this genocide which are underrepresented as compared to the multiple statements of Turkish denial - considering the scholarly validity (based on numbers, published, researched positions and acceptence by governments, international agencies and organizations and by what is known and accepted worldwide). BTW - our resident Turkish lawyer Baristarim - I would bet you any amount of money that if a poll were done among Western nations (Europe/North America - etc) - we would find far more numbers and percentage of people who in fact hold views that doubt or deny the Holocaust then who hold such views regarding the Armenian Genocide (more would likely not have even heard of the Armenian Genocide) - my point being - in counter to yoru point - that in fact Holocaust denial is a far greater and more noteworthy phenomenon then Armenian Genocide denial - thus - by your reasoning - deserved of greater emphasis in the appropriate article. I would even postulate that a greater number of (actual? OK at least mimikry of...) scholarly studies exist which deny the Holocaust then which deny the Armenian Genocide - and the quality - in terms of academic standing - of many of those who publish in denial of the Holocaust is as well arguably greater then those who deny the Armenian Genocide. That the government of Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide is both noted clearly here and is well known in general - that they subsidize and sponser scholars and lobbying groups to do such perhaps needs to be better presented - but none of this legitimizes the position to warrent presentation on par with the facts of this issue as are widely known and accepted and supported by historical evidence and academic research - in every way as legitimatly and as accepted as that of the Holocaust. And denial of this genocide is in no appreciable way (besides Turkish Government intragecence) different the denial of the Holocaust. Likewise comparsisons between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are entirely and demonstratably valid - so enough whining already - including and specifically concerning numbers of Armenains killed - which is absolutly not an Armenain invention as you and other deniers like you contend (in EXACTLY the same manner and using the same type of arguments as those who deny that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis!)--THOTH 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the into is a bit wordy, and introducing more text, especially dubiously misleading text like has been removed doesn't serve the purpose of making the article good. The current Turkey denies this was a genocide, but nobody takes them seriously is all the intro needs - the only problem with the intro is the According to Ferguson phrase which serves to discredit something that seems fairly straightforward. WilyD 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is short enough. This is a controversial subject and as long as we can reach a consensus on the content of the lead, lengthiness shouldn't be a most important criteria. I disagree with your other points. deniz^T_C 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the text would be fine within the article itself - but not in the introduction. Additionally it should be noted that this is the CURRENT position of the Republic of Turkey - as an examination of the historical positions taken by Turkey over time would show a shift from outright denial, to blame of Armenians, to the current position that nothing untoward occured to the Armenians particularly worth mentioning.--THOTH 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

tags

I tagged ref #6 (IAGS) as dubious, b/c the reference does not support the sentence, as far as I can see. But it's almost morning, please you check yourself as well. If it doesn't mention it, please replace the ref by another one that supports it. Please do not misuse references. Also Ramsay is primary source, should be removed along with the text, if we cannot find a secondary source completely justifying it, in which case we can just remove the reference to Ramsay. deniz^T_C

I moved the large footnote to its section. Needs a cleanup now, I did some. Also at several places, we have weasel statements. deniz^T_C 04:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After this last edit (which I hope Alaexis will revert), I am going to go to the second stage for now. I am very busy anyway. deniz^T_C 06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, please don't forget to replace Ramsay and restore other tags. deniz^T_C 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian transliterations

Would it be possible to get some IPA transcriptions for the Armenian text. No offence, but most normal non-Armenians probably don't a clue how words such as "c'ejaspanut'iwn" are pronounced :) ---Ploutarchos 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

2005 film?

A recent article by Robert Fisk states that there is a 2005 documentary on the Armenian genocide (which he does not name). It's not mentioned in this article--so does anyone know what this film is? Badagnani 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I searched some more and found that two films were made in 2006. I've added a "Documentary films" section and placed the titles there. Badagnani 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa)

Why is this section littered with citation needed tags? The linked sub articles cite Philip H. Stoddard, (1963) "The Ottoman Government and the Arabs, 1911 to 1918: A Study of the Teskilat-i Mahsusa," Princeton University. -Does this source cover the content? <<-armon->> 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The the text that does not have the references should be removed. --OttomanReference 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

April 24

Lets call this day "The Armenian SS (Schutzstaffel) Unit Day".

Yet another historical fact: a fact that for years has been deliberately forgotten, concealed, and wiped from memory — the fact of Armenian-Nazi collaboration. A magazine called Mitteilungsblatt der Deutsch-Armenischen Gesselschaft is the clearest and most definite proof of this collaboration.

The magazine was first published in Berlin in 1938 during Nazi rule of Germany and continued publication until the end of 1944. Even the name of the magazine, which implies a declaration of Armenian-Nazi cooperation, is attention-getting. This magazine, every issue of which proves the collaboration, is historically important as documentary evidence. It is a heap of writing that should be an admonition to world opinion and to all mankind.

To give specific examples of actions; In May 1935 the Armenians of Bucharest attacked the Jews of that city, while the Greeks of Salonika attacked the Jews in the August of the same year. During World War II, Armenian volunteers, under the wings of Hitler's Germany, were used in rounding up Jews and other undesirables destined for the Nazi concentration camps. The Armenians also published a German-language magazine, with fascist and anti-Semitic tendencies, supporting Nazi doctrines directed to the extermination of 'inferior' races [1]. This is confirmed by Armenophile Christopher J. Walker, who admits that the Armenians collaborated with the Nazis. According to him, members of the Dashnak Party, then living in the occupied areas, including a number of prominent persons, entertained pro-Axis sympathies.

A report in an American magazine went so far as to claim that the Nazis had picked on the Dashnaktsutiun to do fifth-column work, promising the party an autonomous state for its cooperation. Walker goes on to claim that relations between the Nazis and the Dashnaks living in the occupied areas were close and active.

On 30 December 1941 an Armenian battalion was formed by a decision of the Army Command (Wehrmacht), known as the 'Armenian 812th Battalion'. It was commanded by Dro, and was made up of a small number of committed recruits, and a larger number of Armenians. Early on, the total number of recruits was 8,000; this number later grew to 20,000. The 812th Battalion was operational in Crimea and the North Caucasus. (These are the dates and numbers given by Walker).

A year later, on 15 December 1942, an Armenian National Council was granted official recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German Minister of the occupied areas. The Council's president was Professor Ardashes Abeghian, its vice-president Abraham Giulkhandanian, and it numbered among its members Nzhdeh and Vahan Papazian. From that date until the end of 1944 it published a weekly journal, Armenien, edited by Viken Shant (the son of Levon), who also broadcast on Radio Berlin.

The whole idea was to prove to the Germans that the Armenians were 'Aryans'. With the aid of Dr. Paul Rohrbach, they seemed to have achieved this as the Nazis did not persecute the Armenians in the occupied lands [2]. "Members of the Dashnak party living in the occupied areas, including a number of names famous from the period of the republic, adopted a pro-Nazi stance." [2]

"Wholly opportunistic the Armenians [see below] have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet - whichever was expedient." [3] Sources: [1] Turkkaya Ataov: Armenian Extermination of the Jews and Muslims, 1984, p. 91. [2] C.J. Walker: _Armenia_ London, 1980, pp. 356-8. [3] John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), _Cairo to Damascus_ Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.97.151.164 (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

So? No need for Ad Hominem. Especially here. I think this comment should be moved to the arguements immideatly. Kerem Özcan 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of the above belongs her - particularly not on this day. It might be more appropriate in the "denial of known Genocides" section - as an example of the typical type of (non) argument given.--THOTH 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish position throughout the years

THOTH, you said above that the position of the Turkish government on the Armenian Genocide has changed throughout the years, "from outright denial, to blame of Armenians, to the current position that nothing untoward occured to the Armenians particularly worth mentioning." Can you (or others) elaborate on this, and incorporate it into the section on "The position of the Turkish government"? That way we can not only clarify how the Turkish government feels about this matter at this moment in time, but also place it in a historical perspective. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little time - but I will see what I can do. I think this type of presentation is even more relevant to the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide"article - and my thoughts on this are to document denial of the Genocide since the beginning - how it was covered up and denied while it was occuring - to the present. The only problem is that such a presentation might require presenting bits of original evidence and cobbling together a case - thus perhaps dabbling into what might be termed "original research" or what not...and like many things I consider along these lines (in regards to this subject and article) I'm tempted just to write a book (and let others quote me here! lol)...again always the issue of available time however...but yeah - I'll see what I can do.--THOTH 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also indicate change in Armenian position, number of casualties, etc. Also why is this article filled with OR again, why are my tags not restored? deniz^T_C 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Showering the article with tags is not going to make it better. Offer an alternative or sources.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, readding one tag, which was removed prematurely, and which was earlier added by me rightfully, imo, as the source does not support the statement is showering huh? I could very well do what everyone else does and remove that sentence. This is the second time you know. I am even entitled to be pissed off as my tags were removed. Just find a valid source, I am not the one who added it, I am not going to read gazillions books to find one sentence. I don't know if you are the one who added it. deniz^T_C 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it is but another denial tactic.--THOTH 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Armenian position may that be? I don't believe that any Armenians are the original sources for the 1.5 million killed figure that has apeared in (German and American) consular reports, governmental correspondence and newspaper articles of the time - etc. Nor do I think you or anyone can make any kind of case whatsoever that the 1.5 million figure is one that is held only by Armenians or Armenian scholars much as no one can just make a claim that it is only Jews who hold to the fact that approximatly or to the best of our knowledge about 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. No - this again - is a typical tactic of genocide denial - seen in every genocide that is denied - where the perpetrators or their apologists attempt to minimize the number killed and question the factuality of such figures. In fact this has been a key peice of Turkish denial since the beginning and over the years we have seen various claims of Armenians killed by various Turkish spokespersons (such as the Turkish Historical Society) - claiming as few as 10,000 or 50,000 Armenians killed throughout Anatolia and then counterclaiming (much as Nazi apologists do for Germans deaths in WWII) that more Turks died during the WWI period then Armenians - etc (and attempting to blame the victims - in this case the Armenians - for the calamity that occured and for their own demise). Of course any objective person can understand (the low value and deceptiveness of) these claims and see through them and understand what is being (shamefully) attempted. These are not scholarly claims but mere denialist propoganda. Which brings me to one point that should be made about denial (of the Armenian Genocide) - regarding how such as changed and evolved over the years - is that the denial is clearly reactive to efforts on the part of the Armenian community to obtain recognition for the Genocide. Thus to me - in this article - I believe that the denial of the Armenian Genocide should rightly be treated in the following manner - a section titled something like - "Efforts toward recognition of the Armenian Genocide and its denial by Turkey" is required. I suggest this because this process and history is indeed a notable part of the greater issue surounding the Armenian Genocide itself (and it is commonly accepted that denial is the eighth and final stage of genocide). It is difficult for us to truly understand and appreciate the total and utter devestation of the Anatolian Armenian nation and the psychological scars and physical and life challenges experienced by survivors who were dispersed into other cultures around the world. Not only was perhaps as many as 75% of the Armenian population of Anatolia utterly destroyed (killed to death) and nearly every single Armenian town, village and city where Armenians had once lived in their Anatolian homeland now devoid of Armenians - but the CUP/Ottoman Turkish Government deliberatly acted to decapitate the Armenian leadership (political and clergy) leaving Armenians with few intellectuals or leaders to express themselves on behalf of the Armenian community. (and this is the signifigance of commemorating this day April 24) Nor within the Diaspora was there initially any chance for an outward looking political organization - Armenians were purely concerned with survival - with preventing their own extinction. And the fact that Armenians of the Caucuses became trapped and silenced behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union added to this loss of voice for the Armenian community (and cause for Genocide recognition). And any study of the political events surounding the post WWI "peace process" can well understand how Armenians got the short shift vis a vis everyone elses political and economic interets. Thus the Armenian Genocide was largely forgotten (and this in turn inspired both R Lemkin and A Hitler each in their own ways...). But with the advent of the maturation of the 2nd generation of Armenians in the Diaspora and with Armenians establishing themselves, educating themselves and becomming empowered - things changed. Armenians began to reflect and understand how they had been utterly cheated (from even mere acknowledgement of their suffering...and more of course...) and the pain was (and is) still there - magnified by the fact that this/their Genocide is denied and largely forgotten. This is when Armenians began attempts towards Genocide recognition - in multiple spheres - with political action, education, scholarly programs, and pressure on Turkey - etc) - and of course even ASALA and such groups in the 1970s/80s - can be seen in this context (with the goal of getting recognition of the Genocide, pressuring Turkey and showing it as a denier nation and regarding the frustration over the international forgetfulness...and while we may disagree and be disgusted with their methods I think history will credit them with being at least partially effective in their cause). And here too the modern era of Turkish Genocide denial begins and can be examined - from its early crudeness to its current sophistication - and indeed I contend (and even Turkish spokespersons [such as McCarthy] have expressed) that it is entirely a reactive process. Anyway enough for now - but I hope I have at least made a case for this issue of recognition itself - as well as denial to both be included in the article and presented in the manner that I describe.--THOTH 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Denizz does have a point, in a way. Much of this happened in the territory of the current Republic of Armenia, the victims were Armenians, etc. It would improve the article if we explain the exact position of the Armenian government on this matter, and how the government puts this position into practice in terms of foreign relations, Armenian-Turkish relations in particular. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aecis - I think you are reading more into his "point" and in fact missing his "point" - he is not refering to the Armenian Government but is essentially claiming that anything other then the Turkish position (denial and minimization) is the Armenian position (acceptance as genocide plus details regarding numbers killed, complicity of the CUP led Ottoman Governmental apparatus - etc). BTW I have no problem with a presentation of the Armenian Governmental position - however I am a bit skeptical of such governmental positions in general as they are often based upon political expediency rather then actual fact. The Armenian Government position (essentially the postion of the executive) has somewhat shifted since the founding of the current Republic in 1991 when Levon Ter-Petrosian was President to now (since 1998)under President Kocharian. While each has been careful not to say or do anything that would outright anger Turkey, place blame or make demands etc Ter-Petrosian conciously made the Armenain genocide entirely a non-issue - due in part I imagine based on the fragile existance of the new Armenian State and for practicle considerations (ie wishing for trade and normal relations with Turkey). Kocharian has taken a more straightfoward approach of acknowledgement and wishing for Turkey to do more in this regard but again he has refrained from making any claims for compensation or such - even going so far as stating the the nation of Armenia has no land or material claims against Turkey arising from the Armenian Genocide. One reason Kocharian can be perhaps less concerned with upsetting Turkey is that Turkey has been blockading Armenia since their was with Azerbaijan - thus there are no good imediate prospects for normalized or trade relations. --THOTH 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. THOTH, at least, please break your text into paragraphs, etc, I have some attention deficit problems. The last one was close to "bite-size", but it would be better if it could be shorter. Anyway, I wikilinked Armenian to Armenia back then, if that's something. deniz^T_C 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, THOTH :-) And even if Denizz' intentions weren't pure, as you seem to suggest, he may have struck gold in the process. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A most excellent summation of the Armenian Genocide

I think this is one of the best short accounts of the Armenian Genocide I have ever read. The Wikipedia article could stand to cover some of the content presented here in a brief but very informative manner. http://www.warcrimes.info/shop/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=375 --THOTH 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1965&list of countries

We certainly need these in the article:

Armenian Genocide introduced to the attention of the United Nations as of 1965 by Cyprus.

List of Countries Support Armenian Genocide:
Uruguay (1965)
Cyprus (1982)
Russia (1995)
Canada (2004)
Greece (1996)
Lebanon (1997)
Belgium (1998)
France (2001)
Sweden (2000)
Vatican (2000)
Italy (2000)
Switzerland (2003)
Slovakia (2004)
Netherlands (2004)
Poland (2005)
Litvania (2005)
and of course Armenia. The rest does not support.85.97.151.164 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - but would you say that any nation which has specifically not passed a resolution recognizing the Holocaust is in fact denying it? And what if there were no nations that issued proclamations affirming the Holocaust and/or the Armenian Genocide - would these mean that these events did not occur?--THOTH 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Labour battalions

I have a question regarding the new section "Labour battalions." It says that "Enver ordered that all Armenians in the Ottoman forces, some as old as sixty, to be disarmed, demobilized and assigned to labor battalion units." Is anything known about the demographics of the "Armenians in the Ottoman forces"? Were the sixty-year olds rare exceptions, or were they quite common? If there was one 60-year old in a group of 1,000 20-year olds (exaggerated hypothetical situation), is it notable and relevant enough to mention it? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a new section, it's just reorganised from above. But otherwise your sentiment makes sense - is it particularly important how old or young the soldiers were, as long as they're regular adults? WilyD 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(Executors of the Armenian Genocide)

There is this link in the article that has no text associated to it. It is a separate concept. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it by changing the link text and adding the intro text from the article. I agree that the link to "Executors of the Armenian Genocide" which redirected to Operation Nemesis was confusing. <<-armon->> 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: OttomanReference's edit Fix the classification of "Operation Nemesis", It is not a military tribunal. There are two military tribunals. -makes sense to me. <<-armon->> 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check the military tribunal. Which part of "Operation Nemesis" included a military court? Did "Operation Nemesis" used military officers for the assassinations? Did ARF publicly declared the results of its analysis (every military tribunal has a public side)? Did ARF performed the executions under military code of justice? Did ARF informed the verdicts to the assassinated people? Did assassinated people had chance to a minimal defense? Could you open up your question, which part of military tribunal fits to "Operation Nemesis?" Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I support your breaking it out into another category. It's a contentious topic so I was really only attempting to see if there were any objections to doing that. <<-armon->> 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what this issue is about - linking "Executors of the Armenian Genocide" to Operation Nemesis and scuh - but just as an aside I can't imagine anyone defending the idea that those who were killed didn't completely deserve it. Did 1.5 million Armenians recieve fair justice? Did 1.5 million Armenians have a chance to defend themselves before "charges" against them? Would anyone have objected or shed a tear if an assassin were to have taken out a Hitler or an Eichmann or a Bormann or a Goebbles or a Hans Frank or a Megele had they escaped after the war (or any time - with or without trial)? And unlike after WWII where Nazis were actively hunted down by the Allied powers (and brought back to Germany and other places and put on trial) there was no such effort on the part of any nation after WWI regarding Turkish arch-criminals from the war. Armenians who had been so thourouly and utterly victimized and destroyed had no prospect for recourse - could rely on no one to help them - and had no real apparatus or access to information to have conducted proper trials and have had any hope that anyone would have just rounded up these criminals for them. So they did what they could to avenge themselves and serve justice on those so very deserving of punishment. So I fail to see what objection you seem to have Ottoman Reference - unless of course you consider that defending mass murderers and henious arch criminals is somehow a noble thing - for the good of your nation - which I find to be a very twisted view from a variety of angles...and I'm surprised at your seeming ignorance to how these very same men brought total destruction and ruin to your nation as well - while they enriched themselves (and these facts were indeed proven in post-war trials/tribunals and in fact a great many of those whom Nemesis went after had indeed already been condemned to death in various post war Ottoman trials) - then these men simply fled - and with plenty of assistance and coverage - and were living - sometimes luxuriously abroad with no worry or fear of any action taken against them. Well they were wrong and in at least a few cases justice was indeed served. And its rather appauling to see that anyone would take so much effort to defend their names or their reputations or for that matter those people - who as a group - commited such henious crimes against all humanity.--THOTH 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue I had with it, was that is was unclear what the link was about, and it linked to an article with a different title. The other issue was that is wasn't technically a military tribunal. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Nemesis. <<-armon->> 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Malta Exiles?

Here is what happened to Malta Exiles who were held for some three years, while searches were made of archives in Istanbul, London, Paris and Washington to find proof of their guilt...

On July 19, 1920, Winston S. Churchill, the then Secretary of State in the British War Cabinet, submitted to his Cabinet the following secret memorandum expressing his concerns in the matter of Malta Tribunal:

"I circulate to the Cabinet a long list of prominent Turkish politicians, ex-ministers, generals, deputies and others whom we are still keeping as prisoners at Malta. It seems to me that this list should be carefully revised by the Attorney General, and that those men against whom no proceedings are contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity."

PRO?FO. 371/ 5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War (Cabinet) on position of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated July 19,1920.

On March 31,1921, Lord Curzon's telegram to Sir Auckland Geddes, the British Ambassador in Washington:

"There are in hands of Majesty's government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution."

BritishArchives. PRO?F. 0. 371/ 6500/ E.3552, Curzon to Geddes Telegram No 176,dated March 31,1921

Sir Auckland Geddes's reply:

"I have made several inquiries at the State Department, and today l am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning the Armenian relocations, from the description, I am doubtful whether these documents are likely to prove useful as evidence in prosecuting Turks confined in Malta. Should His Majesty's government so desire, these documents will be placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Embassy on the understanding that the source of information will not be divulged.?"

British Archives: PRO?F. 0.371/ 6500/ E.6311 Geddes to Curzon, Telegram No 374, dated June 1921.

On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

"I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial.He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war.These reports,judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty's government,being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty's government. I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter."

British Archives: PRO?F. 0. 371/ 6504/E.8515 R.C. Craigie, British Charge d?Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon, Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921

Neutrality has nothing to do with this article. This article is as BIASED as it gets.

71.136.249.174 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Deli

They were exchanged for British prisoners held by Ataturk's clan of nationalists. If evidence was missing, that was because the Ottoman government had destroyed it after the war ended.--MarshallBagramyan 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

yes they were exchanged because Brits had nothing to accuse them and used them as POW for exchange. This is also present in English archives. Stating that "there is no document to accuse them, so use them for exchange". This is proposed by the Brits not Turks.

SO What about the Blue book that the English propaganda bureu prepared? what about all the documents Morgenthau had? What about the Lepsius? So they were not really credible documents after all. So basicly all the so-called documents that are said to prove the genocide were regarded as junk by the English back at 1921. No proof = no guilt. DOT.

The ottoman goverment destroying the documents is just pure speculation. Because of the ordering and archive system if a document was destroyed later it would easly be realised. Simply because the archive documents are consecutively numbered. in fact the ottoman archives are full of orders to protect the Armenians. Not to mention the documents on general rebelion and treason by Armenians.. the number of turks killed by armenian volunteers and armenian insurgents are 518.000 to 525.000 and this number is from the ottoman archives. No surprise that The Armenians (yes they were Armenians) who searched the otoman archives for the English could come up with nothing...

Simple FACTS: Armenian officers in the ottoman army in 1917: 170. In 1915, 1670 people (officers or ordinary people)were tried in court martial by CUP. 63 hanged, over 600 prisoned or exiled due to bad treatmen to Armenians. (this is also documented in US news papers) Ottoman minister of Foreign affairs of the CUP goverment and the ambassador to England was Armenian. There were 15 Armenian parliementers in the CUP Goverment.

Pretty much like the NAZI regime isnt it?neurobio 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)