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 (709 kb)
• Archive 2 (698 kb)
• Archive 3 (648 kb)
• Archive 4 (103 kb)
• Archive 5 (113 kb)
• Archive 6 (327 kb)
• Archive 7 (225 kb)
• Archive 8 (215 kb)
• Fadix's Analysis: Fadix Analysis (575 kb)

• A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars

---

clevelander

Why does he get to make changes, he has a biased view on this topic, this is NOT FAIR!!!!

It is unlikely that anyone contributing to this article is unbiased. In any case, lack of bias is not a requirement to edit a WP article. Also, please sign your contributions and avoid shouting. -- Jibal 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this anon, why should Clevelander be able to contribute? He is certainly not neutral on this issue Lutherian 13:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is able to contribute in any article.--Hectorian 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not in this topic, last time I checked it was blocked Lutherian 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected due to vandalisms by anons.Clevelander is not an anon.--Hectorian 13:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well im not an anon and I cant edit it! Lutherian 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When a page is semi-protected,as u can read in the tag,new users cannot edit either.if u can't edit,that means that u are a new user,right? --Hectorian 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new yes, but I find it highly unfair that seasoned users can make modifications because they could very well hold biased views on this highly charged topic Lutherian 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the policy.btw,according to u the specific user is biased,not according to everyone...--Hectorian 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if he was neutral on the issue, it certainly wouldnt be the case for all seasoned users so this partial block policy is in fact flawed Lutherian 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what u think.sorry,but i agree with the policy,cause in this case the article has suffered a lot by anons and new users.--Hectorian 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe thats because its not impartial enough, have you thought of that? Lutherian 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Impratial? Are you kidding? This site has been hijacked, and the hijcacking is being enforced by partially blocking it. This is turning out to be a big farce!!! 83.77.132.154 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Farse?maybe cause u cannot edit?listen:if the article had not been vandalized it would not be semi-protected. --Hectorian 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

says who the admin? since when is the admin objective on this matter? 83.77.132.154 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

the admin is by far more objective than u.as i see,u have a record in making personal attacks...--Hectorian 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

easy on the accusations, you are in no position to judge me 83.77.132.154 14:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

oh yes i am!i am not the one who personally attacks.so,i can say whatever i want as long as i do not cross the line... --Hectorian 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well from what I see you have crossed the line several times in the past so you are in fact in no position to judge me! And BTW, your dear friend Khoikhoi has been banned from editing for 12 hours, LOL.

banned for 3RR,not for making personal attacks like u. --Hectorian 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when is stating the truth considered a personal attack? 83.77.132.154 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That question is often asked by personal attackers. Clearly, whether a personal attack is truthful is a matter of opinion. And also clear, just considering the grammar of the previous phrase, is that whether something is a personal attack is independent of whether it is truthful. Notably, Personal attacks makes no mention of truth or falsity. What it does say is "Don't do it There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." and "Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." -- Jibal 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You called me a freak of nature here [1], if thats not a personal attack, then I dont know what is. If your not here willing to learn and contribute in a good way, then by all means, leave. Chaldean 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

those are serious accusations that you are making, the ip's dont match and you are suggesting that I am a troll, thats a personal attack, I am reporting you! 83.76.135.121 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Personal attacks, which specifically states "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. -- Jibal 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, seriously. Stop feeding the troll. --Eupator 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

can we call this event as a genocide?

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide came into force in 1950 and it is not applicable for the events before this date. legally we can't call this event as Genocide. And please do not forget that in 1915 Turkish and Kurdish civilians were also killed by Armenian forcesç for the full text of the treaty please visit: [2]--Hattusili 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no law against calling an event genocide, and the killing of various parties by various other parties has nothing to do with this article. You might want to explain why you bring that up. Also, your link is bad. -- Jibal 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what you got here, another user registering to land here. BTW, for the same token the Holocaust is not a genocide because it happened before 1950, good going Hattushil. Fad (ix) 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, genocide can be decided by legal principles or by a court of justice. You are right my link is bad I will soon correct it.--Hattusili 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkusers

It is HIGHLY LIKELY that Lutherian is most or all of those IPs. It is UNLIKELY that any of them are Shelby28. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically it means that out dear anonymous friend has registered at least one login to backup his own position. Fad (ix) 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian name?

Hi, Nice article, but what is the Armenian name for the genocide? Diyako Talk + 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)]

Also the article needs more and more images [3]. but of course images in public domain.Diyako Talk + 12:26, 10 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)

Why don't we work on this first? Fad (ix) 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope your good work will continue, but wait for the reversion of document back to the contrdictory editions.--OttomanReference 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

On the list of countries that recognize the Armenian Genocide, I saw Bulgaria. What is the rationale of having Bulgaria on that list, since according to this http://www.arminfo.am/news_250206_2.shtml article, the resolution has been submitted to the Bulgarian Parliament.--Moosh88 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

nothing, [personal attacks removed - FrancisTyers 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)]. A bit like the ridiculous number of pro genocide links that are justly being removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.130.47 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

Please keep your arguments to the arguments page. As the notice at the top of the page shows, any non-editorial comments may be moved there without further notice. Remember, this is a talk page for a Wikipedia article, not a soapbox. That goes for both sides of the dispute. Please refrain from personal attacks and try and remain civil. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[comments moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)]

Parliament of Kurdistan in exile

is an unofficial organization linked to terrorist PKK group as mentioned in their own website PKE Furthermore, its already mentioned in the "official recognition" section so adding it a second time serves absolutely no purpose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.89.101 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

PKE is mentioned already in the "official recognition" section! To mention an unofficial organization with clear terrorist links for a second time is totally unwarranted for!!! Please remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to mention Kurdish recognition for many reasons but primarily because most of the actual people that carried out the killing of Armenians in the Eastern provinces were not ethnic Turks but ethnic Kurds!--Eupator 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your remarks but as the anon mentioned above, the KPE is being mentioned twice in the same section. There is no need to mention it twice Lutherian 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the double mention, no reason whatsoever to mention it twice. Also i've referred to it as "so-called", since its only a parliament in exile by name. --A.Garnet 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "self declared" instead of "so-called". "so-called" seems to be sarcastic. - FrancisTyers 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --A.Garnet 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Map showing recognition

Can someone double check whether that map is accurate. Having looked at the ANI list of Resolutions, Laws, and Declarations I cannot see Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Norway as recognising a genocide as the map (and this article) suggests. --A.Garnet 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also i cannot see Australia on that list either. --A.Garnet 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is amazing is that you often remove things that should stay but request commenting when things should be removed. With the number of aliases and new users contributing in here, it is very difficult to have an eye on all this. Everything not on the list should go..., also, everything Halacoglu say should stay in the Turkish government section, he is the president of the Turkish historical society, which is basically Ataturks governmental founded institution which write the official Turkish government line, if they don't, who does? Fad (ix) 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I request comments when i am unsure, i thought perhaps someone may have seen something i have not. That you think things i remove should stay is your opinion, i have frequently secured others people opinions on things i delete, and if it is lacking, i have not gone ahead with it, or reverted it. --A.Garnet 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say Garnet, I am not right now requesting a discussion on that. As strong as we have disagreed, at least I am sure you are not a sock. BTW, Pamuk is a novelist, Turkish researchers and other Turkish intellectuals or known figures should be separated from eachothers. Fad (ix) 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

turkish thesis

I think we should make another page about the Turkish thesis, to provide neutrality and place links between these two pages. Armenian Genocide (Turkish Thesis) --Hattusili 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thats a very bad idea. We call those POV forks. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints" but this article does not fairly represent the opposition. We cannot request unprotection for this page because radical nationalists may ruin it all. so what should we do? --Hattusili 13:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One option would be to make a copy of this page in your userspace or in the article space, e.g. Armenian Genocide/Working version edit it and then request that it replace the current page when there is consensus among all reasonable editors on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

you gotta be joking, thats a very bad idea! Adendum 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is a bad idea, and what you propose instead. -- Jibal 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It already exists: Holocaust denial, under Other.

--Eupator 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is totally different from what we are argueing here, the Turkish side also have strong evidences about their claims so that an article about Armenian Issue should include their thesis. wikipedia has to be neutral in such issues. --Hattusili 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)]

As a side note, an article on Non-Armenian casualties during the Armenian Genocide would probably not fall under the definition of a POV fork. Providing the page did not duplicate information here and was restricted in scope. As far as I'm aware the main Turkish argument is that "lots of people not just Armenians died" so a page explaining that would probably be good. The page could then be linked from here using the {{main}} template. Just a suggestion, feel free to shoot it down... - FrancisTyers 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic proposition. It is like starting an entry about 'Non-Jewish casulties during the Holocaust' etc. The reason why the Armenian genocide has it own casulties entry is because the position of an Armenian genocide exist and is more than a fringe. An encyclopedic entry would be 'Ottoman casulties during and after WWI' or something such. Besides, 'during the Armenian Genocide' does not make sense because not much or if any revisionists have placed any 'alone' figure for the period when most Armenians have died. As professor Daniel Panzac an autority in Ottoman history writes, most Muslims died after the period most Armenians have died and that for this reason both casulties are not related. Fad (ix) 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. During the Holocaust, there were other groups besides Jews who were killed, such as gay men, and I think they have their own seperate article. Shelby28 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is your reasoning then the appropriate articles in relation to the Armenian Genocide would concern the Greeks of Anatolia and the Assyrians of Anatolia who were both subject to very similar genocidal policies and actions directed by the CUP/Young Turks. In fact the actions against the Greeks (of the Aegean coastal regions) began in earnest as early as 1913 and were akin to a Kristnacht against the Greeks that lasted for over a year. These massacres and forced expulsions were a prelude to the Armenian Genocide where the CUP was testing the waters as it were to see if their actions would provoke a response from the West. Then beginning in 1916 as the peak of the Armenian Genocide was winding down renewed actions were begun by the CUP against the Greeks - this time concentrating on the Greeks of the Black Sea (Pontos) region and against Assyrians who primarily resided to the south of Anatolia proper. Like the Armenians these groups experienced horrible massacres and expulsions at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and like the Armenians these communities were decimated and no longer exist today. There has been no such genocide against Anatolian Turks to warrent a collalary article BTW. Unless of course we place such in the fantasy and fiction section. --THOTH 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know yet. I would have to see what kind of an article somebody would write about the deaths of a large number of Muslims/Turks around the same time period before I could decide whether it was fair or not. Shelby28 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider it sufficient if Turks present a story of 500,000 (and in some cases I've seen 3 million etc) Muslims/Turks supposedly killed by Armenians during this period - where there are absolutly zero eyewitness reports for such things? Where the only "evidence" is the unsupported/uncorraborated claims of the Turks themselves? Where the only academics who adhere to such views are ones who are Turkish and/or in the employ of the Turkish government (in terms of grants and stipends etc)? Because this is what you will have. The record of this period is well known. There was no Turkish genocide during this period no more then the Germans can claim such (and blame the Jews) for thie deaths in WWII. When are people going to wake up and understadn what is going on here? --THOTH 14:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would have to see what was written and the references it had before I could decide whether it was fair or not. From what I understood of FrancisTyer's proposition, it wouldn't be an article about any Turkish genocide, but rather an article discussing the many Muslim/Turk deaths. If such an article were written, I would approach it with an open mind before deciding if I thought it was objective and neutral. That's all I'm trying to say. But since no such article exists yet, and I wouldn't be the one writing it anyway, there's really nothing more I can say.Shelby28 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of such an article? Why is such an article needed outside of a generic article concerning casulaties of nations involved in WWI? (or just as some factoid in an article concerning WWI in general) What relevance is this to the Armenian Genocide? Are there articles concerning British or German or Austrian casulaties of WWI? Is there an article concentrating on Christian deaths during WWI? I totally fail to see the interest or purpose of such an article (unless somehow it be supporting the perpetuation of Turkish denilaist propoganda). Does the fact that Turks/Muslims died during WWI have any bearing on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide? Does the fact that (huge numbers of) Germans died during WWII have any relevance to the factualness of what is known and accepted concerning the Holocaust? If it looks like s***, smells like s***, tastes like s***....then I can only conclude...--THOTH 01:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, I would have to see the article before I decided whether it served a purpose or not. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It would depend on how it related to the main article, the sources used, how well it was written, etc. I'm just not ready to immediately dismiss FrancisTyer's proposition before even seeing how someone would write it. I simply prefer to keep an open mind, so perhaps we can just agree to disagree. But right now, there is no such article and I don't personally plan on writing one - so I don't feel I can comment further on the purpose, point, or objectivity of an article that does not exist.Shelby28 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

what about starting an entry about "Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915" or "Armenian armed operations and forced emigration" ? I think it can be a fair start. --Hattusili 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You can have WWI Turkish casualties.--Eupator 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment partially moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)] Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as propoganda for hateful genociders - for those who perpetuate genocide through its denial. None of this would even be remotel;y allowable in a Holocaust article and this article should be no different. --THOTH 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, I have left this article for near a week I think and thought that things will settle down, but this is not what happened, visit any pages, or the Hereros, or the Khmer Rouge regime, the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine, the Hereros genocide etc., etc., etc... and tell me if there is at least one other equivalent article that has given as much space or if any members there had as much patience as I had here.

No, no 'Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915,' and the reason is obvious, very obvious. You can attempt to build a parallel page to this, it won't make it much encyclopedic. Why? Here some reasons why, the Ottoman records were dumping the entire Muslim population, no separation between the groups, in the East, the Kurds, the Circassians, etc... were the majority Muslim population, besides maybe Erzerum or some other places, whos majority Muslim population were Turk I think. Many Muslims died during WWI(millions of Germans died in World War II), but most of Muslim casulties happened starting with mid 1916, when already over 800,000 Armenians have died. Besides, there has been a war between the Arabs and Turks, between Kurdish revolutionaries and Turks, there has been Envers megalomany sending his army on the front to freeze in Winter, or the starving army in the East, and this as a result of the ministry of the war evacuation of the Armenians which deprived the East and amputating the food supply.

So, you see why you can't have a Turkish casulties page? Because Turks were not separated from other Muslims. Also, there was very few Turkish civilian casulties in 1915, Muslim casulties jumped upward in 1916, during which time the Eastern zones Armenian population was gone.

Does the Turkish government section not give enought space for your second proposition? Don't forget that when I have proposed this, there wasn't much space for the Turkish position, you don't expect to have nearly half of the spaces in the main article and another full for the Turkish position, do you? Fad (ix) 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)]

Armenian Genocide

[section moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]

Vandalised page

I think it was rovoam who vandalised this page. If he gets blocked he comes back on another IP address and these are the type of pages he vandalises. Be careful of him as he's the most dangerous and persistent vandal in all of wikipedia.

Thank you.

Micoolio101 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)