Talk:Armenian genocide

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 (1068 kb/1.068mb)
• Archive 2 (108 kb)
• Archive 3 (648 kb)
• Archive 4 (103 kb)
• Archive 5 {113 kb)
• Archive 6 (327 kb)
• Archive 7 (225 kb)
• Fadix's Analysis: Fadix Analysis (575 kb)

• A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars

---

some random convo

I'm stupid and i was very wrong in what i said. The armenian genocide DID OCCUR because there are photographs, life accounts of the tradegy, and much more. The reason as to why Armenians delete those pages of the opposing side and do not wish to have anyone read them is due to the fact that the Turkish government doesn't wish to confess their horrific acts upon the armenians is cause they don't want to pay billions of dollars to the victims families. Now take that into account opposers!

Indeed you are what you say you are for taking a one sided view and for suggesting that the opposing view should be censored, very unwiki behavior if you ask me!!! Stay ignorant, you are beyond hope!

We (Turks) never did a systematic cleaning like hitler to Armenians.If we did,we wouldnt still have so many people in Istanbul.I wonder why the Armenian government refuses to discuss the events in the Ottoman archives? Thats because they are scared that it will turn out not to be a genocide.Dont forget it was a war situation and nearly two million Turks were killed by Armenians.But too bad we dont have your Lobbying capacity. -Metb82

Taner Akçam has been convicted as a Terrorist in Turkey

And this needs to be metioned somewhere in the article! But again, the same hijackers are making it impossible to highlight this most important detail!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.151 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he was never charged for that, he was accused of publishing communist 'propaganda' during the years of the student movement that was wide spread in Europe. He was accused of being linked with pro-Soviet revolutionaries which is considered as against Ataturks National Assembly integrity. He was allowed back, not because his jailing time was expired, but rather because he was permitted back. He wasn't even considered dangerous, they kicked him in a primitive prison from which escaping wasn't that difficult. Do you realise that by slandering and lying about published authors you are commiting a legal offense? Fad (ix) 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, can you direct me to the source of your information? Do you have proof for your claims?

Which one? Also, isen't it amazing that I should be the one documenting that accusations against someone are unfounded when those accusations aren't even confirmed but comes from self-declared jurists, historians from know it all ultra nationalist grey wolf supporter chronicers which had they lived in any western countries they would not have a line published in the press. Fad (ix) 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont try to evade the question FADIX by turning it around, you deny that Akcam was convicted as a terrorist in Turkey so I ask you please to submit the source of your information!195.186.164.32 06:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In the modern world, people are declared innocent until evidenced guilty. You claim he has been charged of terrorism, so prove it. Fad (ix) 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty? Ha! You are charging Ottoman Turkey of genocide? how about applying the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty? I think its pretty clear now that your sources regarding Akcam are a figment of your imagination, a total fabrication which says something about your credibility!!!

Continue in this path(not maintaing civility) and your IPs might very well be blocked by an administrator.

As for the Ottoman guilt, after the military tribunal, after the large body of scholars and historians..., it is a cases where the guilt has been already been evidenced, it is to the minority view to convince and demonstrate that the large body of evidences brought are either forged or does not evidence genocide. You slander Akçam but you you don't even know under which penal code he was condemned neither those that assassinate his character like you. Fad (ix) 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again FADIX, you are evading the original question which was to provide proof for your reason as to why he was jailed which you obviously cannot produced because its yet another figment of your imagination! Stop trying to turn the question around to me, I notice that this is a tactic of yours to evade the question by either changing the topic or reformulating it so that its the other side that has to answer. I have better things to do than play games with you, so I suggest you behave in a more mature manner as a favor to everyone!

Excuse me - It is up to you to convince that Akcam is unworthy of being referenced and not the other way around. Additionally, I again reference "convicted criminals" Jesus Christ and Nelson Mandella who were arguably more active in revolutionary counter-state movements then Akcam and for which plenty of folks afterward regarded their views etc in spite of such "convictions". Your attempt to discredit Akcam is without substance and is typical of the manner that Turkish genocide apoligists make baseless accusations without substance. Please address the issues if indeed you have anything of substance to say. --THOTH 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the hijacking duo are back in business! Fine with me so long as you realize that this topic is going to remain controversial until you stop your campaign of misinformation. There is abolutely nothing wikified for this topic, no wonder its neutrality and accuracy is being contested!

Hahahaha - you're really funny...but you still have contributed anything of substance here. --THOTH 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor have you, except maybe a substantial amount of hot air! Im almost floating!!!

tallarmeniantale added back, I won't remove it anymore

I will just leave people judging for themselves if it should be removed or not.

Few examples(aomg MANY) which were reported being fabricated to the author.

"All Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation"

I have pasted the pages from which this quote was said to come from, neither was it on the mentioned page, neither in all the two volumes of the work.

"Only 1,500 Turks remain in Van"

Does not exist in the Goshnak, to make matters worse, the Goshnak had not even published an issue at the date it is mentioned to come from. I have reported this too to Holdwater, the best he did is to add a note, but yet left it there.

"The Moslems who did not succeed in escaping [the city] were put to death..."

The city in question is Bitlis, the book from where it allegdly comes from, is Grace H. Knapp book The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919). I don't need to add anything other than asking anyone to search the title on google to know of which tragedy in that city the book talks about.

"The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks."

This quote is a total fabrication brought in the newsgroup(like most Holdwater copypasted from) by our famous newsgroup spammer that just recently appeared to edit the article about him.

"In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."

It is said to come from a work published in 1920, neither the book exist, neither the author wrote something such. I don't even need to be more cvonvincing, 1920 uses of the word Soviet?

"The Armenians snap, or rather they eat, the hands that feed them"

This quote not only is racist, but Henry Morganthau never said such a thing. This quote has been fabricated by someone who called himself Ismet the Historian and participated in forums living in UK, he was a known jocker a poet and a painter, who was having pleasure to creat texts and attributing them to others. The irony is that the guy already recognized the genocide. I have reported this too to the author of tallarmeniantale, but he left it there.

Those are a few examples I have reported, and here I exclude the racistic remarks or the fact that various quotes he place there are racistic and comes from racists considering Armenians as parasits. One example is General Bronsart von Schellendorf, who defended Talaat and also one of those that initiated the deportation of the Armenians. This is what he had to say about the Armenians when his denial finally was not convincing anyone anymore.

“Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—<nowiki>just</nowiki> like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder.” (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-Cool, p. 4, February 10,1919).

There are many such examples, or hos association of the Armenians with the NAZI, etc., I can also here provide other examples on how he slanders scholars and personally attack them under the protection of the proxy under which he hide himself.

When I have exposed the crebility of his site, he had nothing better to do than starting up rumors about me being Dadrian.

If such a site is credible enough here, perhaps I should also build a personal website in which I will also fabricate quotes and link it there in Wikipedia. And here I haven't even included 1/10 of the non-legit trash one could find in this site.

Like I said, if someone remove that site, it won't be me, I am starting to be very tired of POV pushing here in Wikipedia and being fingered as an Armenian editor to discredit my contribution. Fad (ix) 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

FADIX, how can anything you say be taken seriously? Thanks to you there are far more links supporting the genocide claims than those that oppose it. Whats absurd and funny is that if you go through the links one by one, you will notice that they all basically not only make the same claims, but the evidence that they present is identical. So what we have here is just a repetitious batch of links, but I guess thats part of your brain washing tactics! Another thing that I find very disturbing is that you refuse the addition of any mention of the fact that Taner Akçam, your darling genocide supporter, was convicted as a terrorist in Turkey back in the '70s for belonging to a group that even today is considered a terrorist organization by the EU! Not mentioning this is an attempt in censorship because the reader will look at his views in a different light if this information is presented beforehand. And dont even start with your accusations that its a TAT fabrication. His conviction and the reasons for it are historical facts! Just learn to live with it and stop distorting the truth!

There are sites which support the genocide and oppose that should be removed, because true many say the same things. But there is no question that more site supporting the genocide should be included, the article contains more space for the thesis that it did happen because this is the propertion in the academia, so it is logical that this same proportion is kept at the bottom. Also, while I don't like Akçams books, because of all the socialogical analysis mambo jumbo, still the information on terrorist activities are simple wrong. He was accused of publishing communist articles and being involved with Soviet supporters. This placed in context means nothing, he was in the wave of student movement that was also very wide spread in France and has influenced France politics since now and that period also concorded with the second phases, in which powerful syndicates were forming. The stories about Akçam being accused of terrorist activities have been not been recycled officially by the Turkish government, but rather some slanderer writers that not only self-proclame themselves as historians but jurist too. That TAT also recycle those materials, as well as the others slandering Bertkay and many others is just another indication of the non-legite way he run his own website. That he still keep the quotes I have shown him to be pure fabrication is evidence enought that the guy is using forgeries by knoweldge. Fad (ix) 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix - what you call "socialogical analysis mambo jumbo" is groudbreaking analysis which all Armenians, Turks and others should heed. Ackam does the best job at articulating the mindsets of both perpetrators and deniers and provides vital context to what otherwise are just (as the prior commentator puts it) identicle facts and claims...well ye- for anyone who can read the eyewitness accounts and reiterations of such the facts are clear - what Ackam (and certainly some others) provide is context to allow a greater understanding concerning why it is so difficult for the Turks to come to terms with their past and how this mindset had its origins in the time where such draconionan and inhumane decisions were made to enact a "final solution" to what was percieved as a major hurdle for Turks to relise their national ambitions. Do not dismiss Ackam so lightly - his presentation and analysis are quite good and exceedingly worthwhile. I believe that only through analysis and presentation such as he has undertaken will Armenians and others be able to understand the Turkish intrgensience onthis issue and hopefully one day be able to come to some understanding in order to resolve the current schism of thought we find ourselves in. --THOTH 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let say we disagree, I prefer Gocek and others that jump on concret research. Fad (ix) 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder at your motivation or certainly your common sense to be continually casting doubt on the legitimate and worthwhile perspectives on this issue which happen to be other then your own. Both Akcam and Balikian - whom you've derided here and elsewhere - have both researched and presented important and relevant aspects to the history and analysis of the Armenian Genocide and their contributions are generally highly valued (Balikian while certainly no Genocide scholar per se has really done some great research and presentation of information in his "Burning Tigris" book). You're not doing anyone any favors by critiquing them here and your critique of Akcam certainly has no validity. You are not professionaly qualified to make the type of generalized disparaging commentary you do concerning the specifics and value of Akcam and his contributions so I suggest you refrain from doing so and just accept that he perhaps has a perspective and information that is valuable though perhaps does not fit into your strict "Engineering perspective" on this issue. I have an Anthropological and Sociological background as well as an appreciation for the political and social forces occuring within Turkish society (and historicaly) and I certainly appreciate the value of his input - as do many others. Likewise I find your obsessiveness with being "Wikipediacally correct" at the expense of a proper portrayal of the facts to be somewhat disconcerting. I have reviewd a great many Wikipedia articles concerning similar (potentially controversial historical) subjects (such as -once again - the Holocaust presentation - but many others as well...) - and I do not see the weasle wording and apoligism toward the denialist/revisionist viewpoint anywhere other then here. I suggest you consider the value you are providing (and the harm) by promoting that view. As an additional aside - for all those (Turks) who have clumsily attempted character assasination of Akcam - as if this somehow denigrates the value of his research and analysis - well consider that Jesus Christ was a convicted criminal (and revolutionary) as well - and somehow - his words/views are not denigrated for such and a great many people seem to take heed...and we might also consider the legitimacy and the motivations of those who have charged these men with crimes and consider that perhaps often - when we move into the realm of the political - such things can be manipulated and trumped up and certainly bear little on the reality of the legitimacy of the activities, message or integrity of the person accussed. Perhaps Nelson Mandella could be a more contemporary example...and there are many others besides.--THOTH 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to show me where I have discredited Akçam, I reflected my taste on the type of research I prefer. As for Balikian(its actually Balakian), I don't think that I as a scientist am any less qualified than a writer to give my opinion, I have the right to criticise any authors I do want to criticise and I believe that I have this right of opinion. And I have never underevaluated the role of sociology in the understanding of the genocide, but rather the way Akçam approch the issue which can not really be relevent for an encyclopedic article. And yeh, call this Wikipediacally correct for all I care. It amuses me to witness how I am discredited by Azeris editors as just another Armenian POV pusher and by others here because I believe that Turkish POV have some place. And you can provide examples of other articles, if other articles have POV in it, it doesn't justify to have POV in this one. Fad (ix) 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

These need to go. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

• It is believed that
• Many historians believe that
• According to the same commissions and other records
• Genocide scholars answer to those claims, that
• Those who support the genocide theses state that
• Some academics point to
• There is a general agreement among Western historians that

- FrancisTyers 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The next week I will have time addressing those issues, but of course others may start working on them. Fad (ix) 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - at least in part. It is the use of some of these vaugue phrases in the article that causes much of my consternation regarding it. I do think they can be imporved - though it is effort of course (and much seems to fall on Fadix - as much of this article is the result of his dedicated work - but thank you for singling out some instances that perhaps we can work to improve.--THOTH 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it is a lot of work, but I think the article would really benefit from their removal. If we more properly source and attribute the claims/facts then there will be much less chance for people to come in and try and add the neutrality tag just for the sake of it, as we can point to the well referenced article. Especially considering the wideness of the acceptance of the thesis. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would love to do such - and perhaps I can make some attempt - however I have to admit - that once I get into something like this - my inate perfectionism takes over - and what I will do is rewrite the entire section - at the very least. I have a hard time just doing an insert edit if I don't feel the concepts are properly represented and information conveyed in a manner beffiting it. And I know this is how I will feel because I already have a difficult time just reading the article as it is in its current state. This is much the reason why I have hesitated making edits with out a mandate to do more then just make minor changes. I don't know if this makes sense - and it may seem rediculous to some - but its just my way - what can I say? --THOTH 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

General Writing Clean-up

I think that this article could use some general clean-up and re-wording to fix some confusing sentences and ideas. I noticed while reading this that the section titled "The Position of Turkey" (which has a few subtitles underneath) could you some major sentence restructuring. I have corrected a good amount of these, but certainly not all. Some of them also require the original source because I cannot determine what the meaning of the sentence is. --user:marioluigi123 04:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FLAWED TITLE Even this article's title is flawed since the term is disputed and by no means is an established fact. It should say Claimed Armenian Genocide or not use the term genocide at all. It sounds very one sided almost like an armenian propaganda site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.161.150 (talk • contribs)

Er - no. --THOTH 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Er - YA! 83.78.101.7 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Article_names. --Army1987 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork

Just a note to let people know a POV fork has appeared tonight, Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey. It needs to be checked out. Fadix, I know you were working on a similar article, maybe you'd like to merge your info in there. pschemp | talk 08:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am presently overwhelmed, many major edits and creations of parallel articles, and fights between non registered IPs etc., that all this has appeared all together is somehow suspcious. Fad (ix) 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just talking on behalf of myself. I do not belong to any conspricy group. I can always defend my editions, which 4 out of 5 is cosmetic anyhow. I worked on making the text to read effectively. I can also defend the seperation of Turkish arguments from the main article on the fact that whole rethoric is against laws in some EU countries.--Karabekir 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirly, the article is not easier to read than before, to the contrary, many of your edits, I don't even understand what you mean, you add sentences that should entirly be reconstructed grammatically and you don't even justify any of your edits. This article is very controversial, in that that it has faced in the past many edit wars and we have agreed that major edits should be justified on the talk page and discussed. I do not oppose to have a section on the Turkish government position, to the contrary I was the one that proposed that, but Turkish government position doesn't mean your positions diguised as Turkish government positions. I have read all that there was to be read in French, English and even translated OCDed German works representing the Turkish government position and many of your edits claimed to be the Turkish government position are not to be found in any Turkish government publications. Example, is when you mistake the transit camps as concentration camps, or you bring the morphine injection which isen't addressed in any single Turkish publication that I am aware of. Sure, I do not claim that if I am not aware of something it must not exist, but I have read Gurun major work, Ataov publications, foreign ministry publications and various others including Halacoglu booklet and many of your edits are found nowhere so I requested you to cite them when I have removed them you reintroduced them without citing anything at all.

It is very interesting, that you can have access to documents on which official policy of the Republic of Turkey is "do not engage". "Do not engage" policy extends to print medium. With this policy they do not try to disprove any claims. If you have really access to these documents, you would recognize that they are nothing more than historical briefings, mainly explaining period. They generally have a secondary source (mostly TTK) which forms their official position. In this respect, I wonder where is the document that takes one-to-one approach. Some of your texts have very strong flavor of your own rethoric (I say baised). I do not see any wrong if someone uses their own rethoric within the sphare of the topic (or position in this case). In that sense, you need to be watchful when you claim righteousness, as sometimes your spicy words are just reflection of you.--tommiks 09:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call my rhetorics are official positions which are found in various books and publications, and I have cited here various relevent works in this talk page and footnoted those that were the most controversials. Comming to the Turkish official positions, I have requested citing sources and this was the least I have requested, while I have presented positions which are found in publications, the current editor is meanly reading the article and answering to it in the Turkish government position section, this is not how it works, this is called original research and is against Wikipedia policies to include. And I have given some example there, also that you have no problem with those edits and even go on to criticise my participation I think would goes against you, given that not only this editor has added sentences that grammatically speaking are questionable, from which many are hard to understand, and others are simply his own thoughts and his own answer to the article he didn't understand.

About the TTK, I don't say they do not exist, I say that all those years I haven't read them, be it in Turkish I don't care I want to have them, I have friend s who would be glad to confirm what I have requested do exist, and if you have a priblem with my request to cite the source then I don't know what to say. Fad (ix) 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And you also in your edits which you attribute to the Turkish government includes things that are actually answers to the rest of the article which you have misinterpreted possibly because of your limited understanding of English. For example, the claims of prisoners, or mass killings by biological or chimical methods that even Dadrian doesn't claim so in his specific publications about them. You have possibly read the footnote and answered to it, this can not be anymore attributed to the Turkish government position. Also, you can not just add in the Turkish government position here in this article and also reserve to it all by itself another article, this would be a misunderstanding of the policies here in Wikipedia. If you want to creat an article about the Turkish government position, you ought to also include in the same article the position of the critics, by doing what you are doing you are misleading readers by not only giving an entire article about the Turkish government, but also to add its views here in this very same article and creat a polarisation which is not the goal of the creation of articles about different positions.

Also, you have created an amount of other pages about chronology without prior discussion and they are copyvios, you can not just copypast from other websites like this, this is one of the most sacred policies here in Wikipedia. Of course, I could have worked to make of them non-copyvios, but given the speed with which you creat articles and edit this page without any summaries or justifications, it is impossible to follow you.

Lastly, better structured is a very relative term, I disagree for example that the article is more structured now than before, you should have discussed on the talk page, and asked for comments. For now, what I propose personally is to add the totallydisputed tag because many of the issues are not only neutrality issues but rather misrepresenttation of the positions. Fad (ix) 22:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I to am very busy at the moment - but I am just brimming with edit ideas for that article...lol. We'll see...I imagine I won't have to provide references to my comment eh - as there are none in that article...of course most of my input will be to point out the fact that the claims in the article are unfactual and reflect a very narrow POV and need to be presented as such...etc --THOTH 20:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag added

I had no choice other than adding the tag. Fad (ix) 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 195.186.164.32 and tree revert rules

This user has done it again. Fad (ix) 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually its three revert rules, LOL

I'm glad to make you laught, if that could make you happy, fine. Fad (ix) 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For the interest of the contributors of this article

Recently a new editor, Karabakir, has contributed a lot to this article, I admit that I was suspicious at first but I tried to assume good faith even after witnessing the obvious and since a member has warned me that Coolcat has accused another member who contribute in this article to be me under another alias I smelled that he(Coolcat) could attempt the similar. I only became convinced that Coolcat and Karabakir were the same person just after he has created the chronology pages because of the way that is particular to Coolcat, that he was creating tables with multiple colors etc., after examining Karabakir and Coolcat style and both contributions and the chronology pages I was convinced 100%. But I refrained myself to report him because I knew that those were serious charges and could lead to Coolcat blocking, I also knew that possibly another member witnssing the way the chronology pages were done will realise the same thing as me and this is why I suggested adding a deletion tag on those pages and that it could still maybe be possible to reasonate Coolcats alter ego. This was fruitless because when I have suggested this to Karabekir he answered me with an attack. People can read my talkpage for more information on this issue.

I am writting this to warn editors about who Karabkir is really and leave them judge what should be done with his future edits as it is obvious that for now he will be denying it, but probably not for too long as both contributors posting times matches, and that some of the expressions he uses are proper to Coolcat as well as the way he build time or chronology tables. Fad (ix) 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you actually have a life or do you just spend all your time on this wiki topic? Frankly im worried about you! 62.203.134.214 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Communitee attention, requesting a vote

I am proposing to revert the article back to what it was before Karabakir changes and moving his changes in the talk page for further discussion. I will accept the result of this poll.

Say either you agree or not. Fad (ix) 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - revert it back - changes were not made with proper discussion. I catagorically reject the manner in which the so-called "Turkish position" has been included in this article as some kind of factual counter to the known and accepted facts concerning the Armenian Genocide. Again - this is entirely akin to the addition of Holocaust denial positions in the holocaust article presented as some kind of legitimate counter to facts concerning the Holocaust - which they are not and neither is the Turkish position factual in any measurable way. There is no sufficient academic weight in any of these arguments worth citing as such. The Turkish denials need to be presented for what they are - not as a counter to real known and truthful history. This is a disgrace. --THOTH 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This poll is not about deleting the Turkish position section, but rather Karabekirs (Coolcat) major changes without any prior discussion. Fad (ix) 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this will be the unpopular opinion but... I would disagree for now. Here's my two cents - it seems to me that this contributor's first language is not English. I spent some time trying to correct the many grammar errors that he or she made. (And there's still more since there are a few sentences that I just can't make sense of) But instead of just deleting everything Karabekir added, I would say give the editor another couple weeks to clarify and edit through the parts he added. After that, if there are still major disputes, then consider revising/editing Karabekir's contributions. Shelby28 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix when was the last time there was an edit to this article you didnt approve? You can't own articles you know. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So you finally end up here, I thought you had no time and working on your new bot. As for your charges, had it been not of me, there still would be revert wars over this article and you know it, and that your claim fall short when someone check the history of this article to realise that I have been as fair as humanly possible and that there are non-Armenians here that would have opposed the inclusion of a section dedicated to the Turkish government position. Fad (ix) 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not only grammar, I have requested him to cite his sources for many references, the user has created pages with copyvios, and refused to discuss his edits and when I have gone as to say that there is enought there to digest he jumped on me. There is also the fact that in the upcoming days I will submit an arbitration cases against him and Coolcat, since I have strong evidences that both are the same. Also, I have to be honnest with you too, that you had no any prior edit and registered just after Coolcat decided to contribute place a salty taste in my mouth, and more when you come in knowing the policies and have no any other contribution other than supporting Coolcat and just now correcting Karabekir and supporting him too, I will be requestion checking logs but I don't expect much since Coolcat would have used proxies regardless. Also, you must consider that it was already agreed here that major changes would require discussion before, had he been contributing in other articles with this inept English and without discussion his edits would have probably been sent on the discussion page. Fad (ix) 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Fadix, now I'm offended. You're accusing me of being someone else? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything must be the one and the same person? I thought I was being helpful by taking the time to make a bunch of grammar corrections to karabekir's somewhat hard to understand edits to the page. I actually thought it'd be easier that way for other people to read it and make further edits to it. Apperantly, now it means I must be him. Look, feel free to submit whatever arbitration cases you need to against whoever, not my problem. Maybe coolcat/karabekir are the same person - maybe they're not. I don't know. Heck, if it makes you feel better, include me too. My IP address will be coming from UCLA. So unless karabekir and coolcat are also UCLA students, hopefully that'll satisfy your curiosity that we're not all one and the same. Anyway, I never said you had to take my advice on anything. I simply wanted to offer my opinion as a Wiki user. And no, I don't know much about whatever history you and coolcat have over editing this article. Geez, just delete everything karabekir added if you really want to. But please don't make unfair accusations. Shelby28 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I came here after you bothering me on my talk page. Your hostile attitude is apperantly annoying multiple users. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, only you under different aliases. Fad (ix) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the Checkuser operators, Fred Bauder, has examined edits by Karabekir and Cool Cat and determined that "it is extremely unlikely that Karabekir is Cool Cat." Fadix, I'm asking you to retract your accusations. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't it is him, Tony, read this up. User_talk:Fred_Bauder#About_Coolcat

I have checked, checkuser is based on IP checks, while it might be a good tool for ignorant vandals, those like Coolcat who pretty much know how to use open proxies, there is no way to know. Before asking me to retract those accusations please check the first edits (more particularly the first) made by Karabekir. Also, Coolcat in the past in this very same talkpage has already said that if he would want to he could creat many aliases and no one would know, such a thing doesn't require a genious in computer programming. If you check the first edits of Karabekir, not only you will see that it is Coolcat, but you will see that as amasing as it was he wasn't the inept in English as when he started being implicated in the articles regarding the Armenian genocide. Not only I will not retract, but this time he has gone much too far and I will request a life ban on everything related to the Armenian cases, I have accumulated a bunch of evidences and will be presenting it on an arbitration cases. Fad (ix) 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shelby28, I have not claimed that you were Coolcat, I said probably once but then changed it with possibly. There are many things happening in this page and to not see it would be to be blind. First an anonymous user under many IP addresses add continuisly TAT website which in the past Coolcat has attempted to add without success. And, there is you that log an account and post right after Coolcat request changes here supporting the adding of the POV tag, you have done nothing other than this in Wikipedia, of course other then re-adding it and nothing else, after over a week you stop doing anything you come in giving your 2 cent when I bring Karabekir issue and you go on correcting grammar while you had nothing to say when repeatdly I have requested in my edit summaries peoples attention..., you only decided to act after I have requested communities vote. I have also been warned by a user, and I won't reveal that users identity that Coolcat again was up to his tricks in the IRC after a time of silence when I haven't even heard of him.

What? now you are accusing me of being coolcat too? It seems that you are becoming paranoid FADIX, you should maybe take a long break to refresh your mind, its starting to work against you! And by the way, you have to admit that my english is better than that of Karabekir or coolcat, so your accusations would just not work, sorry! 62.203.134.214 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been various parallel articles created by Karabekir, they would just popup without any discussion, the guy that allegedly is inept in English would provide edit summaries the same exact way Coolcat does it, he would creat tables by using Coolcats codes, he will color them in Coolcats tastes, he will entirly rearange the Armenian genocide article nearly completly without any single previous discussion, and there is no one out there that has such particular behavior other than Coolcat... the reorganization of the article was one of the specific things that Coolcat has attempted previously and which ended up to be disruptive and one of the points of the arbitration.

Now, with the copyvio pages and the other parralel articles he has created would require hours of discussions if it was placed for deletion. Had he attempted to do that in any other controversial articles he would get his changes moved on the talk page.

Also, few questions, you are not forced to answer them. How about you know what is the arbitration process so perfectly, and all that there is about Wikipedia, when beside the fact that you have just appeared after Coolcat request and just now, you have no any single contribution on here. Like I said, you are not forced to answer me. Fad (ix) 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Fadix, you certainly had no trouble accusing me of being coolcat/karabekir on Fred's talk page. Look, you may be right and c/k are the same person, but you're really not helping your case by also accusing other people like me. And if they are the same and karabekir wrote all that stuff in poor English on purpose, then yes, I feel really dumb for taking the time to make grammar corrections. As for me, just because I haven't contributed to this page till February doesn't mean I haven't been a general Wiki reader for a long time. But no, I would never claim to have a "perfect" knowledge of any arbitration or rule process. Also, I have a million things going on in my life, and I only check this page occasionally. Does not coming here every day ban me from rendering my opinion? I am also hesistant to suggest or make edits to the content of this article rather than simple grammar edits, because of the automatic fights that many of the edits seem to trigger. My attempt is to maintain a neutral perspective on a topic that's interesting but that I don't have a stake in either way. I'm not in favor of going along with a majority of users simply because they're the majority - but prefer to remain as evenhanded as possible. That's why I'm hesistant to quickly remove npov tags, or to delete large portions of text without giving the editor a chance to make more edits/changes. If all of this makes you think I must be coolcat, well then there's really nothing more I can say.Shelby28 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)