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 Fadix Analysis

SLANDER

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)