Talk:Armenian genocide

* Resources

• Fadix Analysis

Curiosity About Facts & Figures

As a wikifan, i didn't change or add something in the page, mainly, because i don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject. But, there are many items which i feel 'uncomfortable' about the article.... -Motivation part is missing, altough it is a fact that there were pogroms against the Armenians, before WWI, effects of Armenian nationalism and revolts are not taken into account.... -Peak point for the genocide Diaspora is considered as 1915-1916, but all mentioned genocide Diaspora accounts are from east regions of present day Turkey, if it is a campaign of extermination against Armenians fueled by nationalist hatred, why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?.... -Van Resistance chapter conflicts with military history chronicles. Generally, it is considered that, when it was clear that, Imperial Russian Army was to capture Van in a few days, already organized groups like Dashnaks, revolted and they had gained the control of the city, the city was captured by Russians and Armenian units attached, on the 16th day of the revolt.... -Ottoman Government's decision of displacing Armenian citizens to southern parts of the country, seems reasonable, if you look from an administrative and military point of view (not humanitarian).... -Capacity of Ottoman Army to relocate huge numbers of civilians has to be discussed, please note that 1915 is the year that, Ottoman armies were fighting in Gallipoli with around 300.000 casualties, in Iraq with around 100.000 casualties, in Sarikamis with around 100.000 casualties, also, in Sinai and Palestine against British and was conducting a war in Yemen and Arabia against Arab rebels. Actual figures of Ottoman military presence has to be included in the article, it makes the distinction of 'massacre' and 'genocide'. If you consider the 1927 census of Turkey was 13.6 millions, i have doubts about how much manpower Ottoman Army could field for an organized genocide.... -Transportation system of Ottoman Empire has to be mentioned, without any railways available, displacing huge numbers of civilian without adequate food, water supplies, means of transportation and with very poor protection against gangs (eastern regions of Anatolia had lawless gangs even until 1960-1970 period), clearly would turn to 'death marches'.... -Relocating Armenian civilian population in the deserts of Syria caused definitly a disaster, considering the Ottoman Empire was at the brink of collapse and even couldn't feed, dress and equip their own armies.... Ottomans, served well for the Germans, by opening a new front against Russia in the Caucasus region, so the Russia could not use valuable resources against Germanny in the Eastern Front, but this, combined with Armenian desire for self-governing, like Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians had previously managed, resulted with huge losses of Armenian civilians.... Those events are not well documented as Holocaust (Germans were definitly better with archiving then the Ottomans), the losses and sufferings are beyond discussion, but, the main notion to call the events as 'Genocide', is debated and will be debated.... For wikipedia, as an open source, it is very difficult to maintain an article, disputed so much, but i propose to add above mentioned headlines as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.42.16.43 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You write "I don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject", then write lots more that prove that assertion to be true! Meowy 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He actually knows what he is talking about and is just being modest. Nobody has enough knowledge about the subject (no documents exist that prove the genocide, memoirs of naim bey were lost by europeans), that's exactly why the genocide is disputed and unless somehow conclusive proof emerges for either recognition or denial, people will continue to dispute it. Everything he mentioned are valid arguments also used by various scholars. These are all issues/arguments that should have a place in the genocide article itself not on the denial page. Failing to mention these arguments, not having a denial section and even deleting these arguments when it is added by others because "it belongs in the armenian genocide denial article" violates POV_fork rule as QWL pointed out here [1]. I know this is the main article itself and not a fork but by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide article and banishing everything to the armenian genocide denial page you violated POV_fork rule. It is almost the same thing as creating a fork because they either created the denial article themselves so they could push their POV on the armenian genocide article or they basically forced others to create it by not allowing denial/doubt views on the armenian genocide article.

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

It is clear, I think, that the armenian genocide article doesn't represent all facts and major Points of View on the genocide and should be drastically rewritten. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's something which is very amazing: do denialists imagine what the article on the Armenian Genocide would look like if it was really PoV? My two cents. Sardur (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am not a denialist by the way, I simply don't think there is conclusive proof the ottoman government ordered armenian civilians to be attacked. Talat pasha even said in his documents that he wanted to punish those who were responsible for attacking the armenian civilians. That is a big contrast with the nazi's who were proud of their racist doctrine and even at the nuremberg trials didn't change their mind. Talat pasha was known as a courageous man and I don't believe he would have denied the genocide if he really was responsible for it. Talat pasha was respected by the armenians before the war and has never shown any sign of racism/religious extremism. None of the young turks were racists or religious fanatics. The young turks were even co-founded by jews, greeks and armenians and were secular. I don't understand how when the war started these persons could so drastically change that they would want to exterminate the whole armenian race when they had been friends and colleagues with them before the war. War crimes were committed (also against turks in western regions and crimea) but that doesn't automatically mean the ottoman government ordered them. Most attacks were committed by local militia's, bandits, and scared villagers who with the fear of the approaching russian army took out all their stress on the armenians who they saw as collaborators with the enemy. I also doubt that the majority of the armenians who died, died of violence. I have seen the pictures of children and corspses on armeniapedia.org (it made me sick) and they were all extremely undernourished. I think most died as a result of the circumstances of the war. They might also have been killed by bandits, militia's, angry/scared mobs or even by ottoman soldiers. I really don't know. I only think that there should be conclusive proof before you recognize/accept such an accusation as the armenian genocide. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have such a high opinion of Talat, Ibrahim4048, then I suppose you will believe his own writings. The self-confessed ill-informed anon who started this thread asked "why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?". Talaat's own figures (cited here http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/Black-Book.pdf) for some vilayets (provinces), all of them in the western or central parts of Anatolia. Ankara - 1914 population: 44,661 Armenians, by 1917, 31,895 of them were deported. Izmit - 1914 population: 56,115 Armenians, by 1917 52,235 of them were deported. Kayseri - 1914 population: 47,947, by 1917 41,324 of them were deported. Sivas - 1914 population: 141,000 Armenians, by 1917 132,903 of them were deported. BTW, Talat's 1914 population figures seem small. For example, in all other sources the Armenian population of Sivas vilayet ranges from between 152,000 to 200,000. Meowy 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for curiosity. Is there a specific reason why armenians reject to leave the subject to historians? It doesn't make sense to me when all armenian arguments are based on unofficial data such as photos and diaries, which we don't know if they are real or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabalgasun (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Denial season

Looks like the denial season started early this year. VartanM (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What did you achieve/contribute by saying that? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noted my observation, that every spring fine denialists like yourself "wake up" from their annual hibernation and make their mission to right the wrongs. This year the spring came early, perhaps because of the global warming caused by Obama's promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. By the way Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Ottomans and Russians are capitalized in English language.

P.S. Welcome to wikipedia, enjoy your stay. VartanM (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are a bear who hibernates but I am a human being and don't appreciate it when people try to make witty remarks. I also don't care that much what obama promises or not. I think he is just "the good cop" after "the bad cop". Nothing will significantly change in america's foreign policy, unfair trade and the so called war on terror. By the way I know that armenians etc are capitalized and don't need you to remind me of that.

P.S. Thanks for welcoming me on wikipedia, I'll try to enjoy my stay though it has not been so pleasant thus far. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ibrahim4048 is here because he has been directed here as an alternative to the Mehmed Talat article. He, and others who will arrive when the denial season starts for real, will just be saying the same things that will have been said, discredited, and discounted somewhere on the 18-page archive of this talk page. So, rather than addressing what has been addressed before, it would be better to spend time on getting the article into a decent shape. Meowy 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just like you guys also have been saying the same things over and over again. I'm having midterms this week and I can't participate on wikipedia for now but I will discuss it with you. The article is POV fork because it is one sided and only in the denial article denial material is allowed. The good denial/doubt arguments are left out though and if you look at the bibliography and the reference list you'll see that even in the denial article most content is pro-recognition. You have been monopolizing this article for too long now. This is not acceptable. Every viewpoint should be given in an article about a subject. There should be a denial section in the armenian genocide article. I will make it myself and will make adjustments where needed. As long as I give proper references and explain my contributions you have no right to delete it. There is no rule that pro-recognition material should be in the armenian genocide article and denial material on the denial article. That's exactly what POV fork is and is against wikipedia rules. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is because Turkey is emerging as a major world power; we have other issues like prospering our country by working hard. We are busy people, and none of us earn our lives out of this wiki thing. Perhaps we should employ full-time people for correcting your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Message of Thanks To The Editors

Hi - I read a lot about world history, especially conflict situations like Cyprus, The Holocaust, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia etc. I often find the talk pages more interesting than the articles, because you get a sense of the underlying debates. It's also common to see aggressive & partisan editing being contained by small teams of patient, fair & ethical volunteers. As a wikireader, I wish to thank Meowy, THOTH, VartanM & The Myotis for their work on this page. Well done!

Bat Ya'or is not a source to quote in any scholarly article

I would suggest the removal of the reference to what Bat Ya'or thinks of the Armenian Genocide. She is not a serious scholar, and furthermore her opinion is irrelevant, and does a real disservice to the study of this important subject. 62.31.57.63 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)S2ao

Problem with use of Brittanica in the Armenian deaths, 1914 to 1918 section

The use of the Brittannica article is a subject is scholarly dispute and should be removed or revised.

Dolabjian, Vartkes S.(2003)'The Armenian Genocide as portrayed in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica',Journal of Genocide Research,5:1,103 — 115

The use of the 600,000 number has been characterized as underestimating the Armenian death toll, and Brittanica in particular has been subject to a range of revisions throughout the 20th century. As argued by the author "Even calculations based on figures published by the post-war Turkish government bring the total of Armenian deaths to over a million. Under the circumstances, using the figure of 600,000,even as the lower limit of a wide range, amounts to a surrender to revisionism, and appeasement to the apologists of genocide, as well as an act of disrespect to the memory of the hundreds of thousands whose deaths are being discounted and whose very existence is being dismissed."

I would support removing the reference to Brittannica entirely as it is the subject of academic dispute.

Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)dreddly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddly (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First learn to write properly in English before discrediting Encyclopædia Britannica (!) as a proper source. 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tertiary sources like non-specialist encyclopaedias should, in general, not be used as sources on Wikipedia. See Primary secondary and tertiary sources Meowy 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the reference removed? The page is still locked. Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)dreddly

Please read this article thinking human rights of 150 years ago.

You express yourself that human rights in the years of 1850 were similar or better than those human rights of nowadays. In the years 1850 there was slavery in USA. Great Britain, France and Russia had a lot of colonies all over the world. The people of the colonies were the slaves of these states. In Ottoman Empire there was no slave nation. Instead Great Britain, France and Russia had clear plans over the lands and nations of Ottoman Empire and enslaving the people living under Ottoman Empire. They were willing to help Armenian and other Christian people living in Ottoman Empire not because they liked these people but in order to occupy their lands. There was a war between Great Powers for the lands of Ottoman Empire. In order to achieve their target they provoked religious wars between the Muslims and Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Christian people, especially Armenian people were rich and prosperous in the Ottoman Empire. They could be minister and they could administer the Ottoman Empire (Kapriyel Noradunkyan,; Artin Dadyan Pasha (Harutyun Karekin), Hagop Kazazian Pasha, and many others). Armenian people as stated in the article were "loyal nation" for Ottoman Empire. Ottoman Empire was administrated by all the nations living under the empire. Administration staff of the empire was great admirer of the Armenian people and they did not like Turkish people because Turkish people were poor, did not have any artisanship. If the empire was at war with another state, Turkish people were collected as soldiers and were going to war and Armenian people was living in peace with remaining Turkish women, children and old people and was continuing to flourish and gain money. Alevis People was under pressure of the Ottoman Empire and periodically massacred by Ottoman Empire because the administration was afraid that this people could prefer to live under the governance of Persian that they had similar sect. Shortly Armenian People was happy to live with the Turks in Anatolia but Great Powers caused many tragedies and not only Armenian People, but all the Anatolian Peoples including Turks, suffered. You try to base the rebellion of the Armenian People to the Ottoman Empire to rightful causes and you state that Armenian People were second class citizen. Not more than 100 year ago, nowadays, in the Muslim countries where Sheria (Moslem religious law) prevails, Christians still they have legal limitations like being not considered equals to Muslims, etc. In your opinion the Christian living in these countries are "second class citizen". Is it right that Great Powers should provoke this Christian People counter their legal states, and these people begin to terrorist actions against the Muslim people? If there wasn't the provocations of the Great Powers we all the Anatolian People could live together in peace in Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.158.177 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this posting is off-topic and so should be removed. There are already 19 pages of talk archives, filled with too many off-topic discussions, so a greater effort is needed to cut down on the amount of such off-topic posts. Unless there are valid objections, I will remove this post in a week or so. Meowy 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NB, this section has been removed for off-topic reasons before, [2] Meowy 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

History Commission

I would like to learn more about the establishment of historical commission and its findings to make up my mind on this issue. Because the whole article seems to be very one-sided, I found lots of information on different interpretations of AG on the net, (and none were written by the Turkish government, which is another problem with this article that it neglects all these people's views and assume they are affiliated with TR) How come none are listed here? 0, Hope you guys agree on something after this, I hate to believe in something false and accuse people due to propaganda, I am really looking forward to hearing the findings of this commision —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.10.223 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this posting is off-topic and so should be removed. There are already 19 pages of talk archives, filled with too many off-topic discussions, so a greater effort is needed to cut down on the amount of such off-topic posts. Unless there are valid objections, I will remove this post in a week or so. Meowy 00:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ASALA

Practically every detail regarding the issue has been covered, except for one important detail: ASALA and its assassination of Turkish diplomats throughout the world, as well as its airport bombings (near the Turkish Airlines counters) in Paris, Ankara and elsewhere, which caused the deaths of many civilians from Turkey, the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, and numerous other nations; whose only fault was just to "be there" at those particular unfortunate moments. Should we turn a blind eye to the ASALA issue, and the deaths of all these people, as if they never existed? 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Denial seasons comes early before Christmas

Bosniak (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)One thing I noticed with the Genocide deniers in general is: You can offer them UNDISPUTABLE amount of evidence that the genocide occured, BUT they are blind, they are deaf, and they only see and hear what they want to see and hear. So, debating genocide deniers is same as debating a WALL. Take for example Srebrenica genocide deniers... they are waste of time.

Yeah, it works that way in religious matters too. If people don't want to believe, they won't. Better get used to it, or you find yourself wasting time and getting annoyed. Krastain (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

references for "Armenia" article

Armenia#World War I and the Armenian Genocide section is marked as "This section does not cite any references or sources." can somebody from here supply those references? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)