Talk:Armenian genocide

* Resources

• Fadix Analysis

Neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is brazenly biased in many parts and should be marked

as a bare minimum before any corrective discussion takes place. This is an alleged event, and highly controversial, but this is not reflected in the writing at all. The article is almost universally supportive of the events being acts of genocide, and paints the Turkish statements of explanation as little more than lies. This really should not occur from such an influential source as wikipedia.

It should be marked but it is still not. Neutrality and reliability of sources is in high doubt, this is something that can be tagget as produced by The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).Hittit (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what neutrality means to claim this? You might be thinking that neutrality means putting on weighs as many of counterarguments as there are arguments, but it is about the neutrality of points of views. here there are no points of views but facts based on reliable sources. I'd suggest you consulting the Wiki rules and terms first! Aregakn (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article once again. It utilizes documents that have been proven to be forgeries as if they were authentic. This article is a vile attempt of propaganda and those that are involved are really pathetic. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you list those documents and tell about each base on what you claim them being "that have been proven to be forgeries" and notonly make a claim and leave it. Aregakn (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Memoirs of Naim Bey is one such example. There have been no findings of an existence of an officer in the Ottoman government or service. The documents it utilizes doesn't even have the date right. Aram Andonian made a fool out of himself by forging these documents as he can't even convert Rumi date to Gregorian date. You don't really need to be an expert to understand that telegrams sent to officers when they were not even stationed in that location at that time or served under that title that the documents suggest are wrong. But, of course due to lack of any evidence they're often utilized by Armenian and Western scholars. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments don't usually change the content... Aregakn (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a monolog

This article in most part is an Armenian monolog, it lacks contrary views and attempts to present views contradicting the Armenian thesis are deleted and quoted as unreliable (no discussions allowed)…we are led to believe that works by reputable historians published by Cambridge or Harvard University press are a mere scratches on a cave wall by denialists and that compilations by Lutheran missionaries and reports by foreign third parties supportative of the Armenian cause the only acceptable sources. You cannot have an objective article without including views to the contrary and their sources.Hittit (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not enough that sourced data is removed from the article, discussion is even removed from the talk page...Hittit (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For your information, this is not a thesis. It is what you claim it to be so it's your POV. International organisations including the UN do not share your POV, so stop diluting yourself.

I'd suggest editors to speak on concrete issues rather than make statements.

The article, gives no background why the Armenians were deported or killed. It does not mention the thousands of Armenians attacking Turkish civilians before the attrocies against them started. The part that deals with the controversy surrounding the genocide only mentions how Turkey and only Turkey is "trying to stop the term from being used," and by giving some unobjective sources tries to show how Turkey bullies around to stop it from being recognized. There are numerous international historians, organisations as well as over one hundred nations who think that it's not a genocide. Why aren't any of these mentioned? For any person with a little bit common sense, this is not an encyclopdeia article, its not evet subjective, its pure and simple propaganda. If you're going to be biased at least do it with some style. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking in the air isn't useful. All is correct in the article and is references properly. Aregakn (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer. I asked why are some aspects deliberately left unmentioned. A statement like "all is correct" is senseless. All this discussion is because a vast number of people have some real concerns about the neutrality of this article. All might not be correct dear Aregakn.--Diren Yardimli (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are well referenced changes deleted? Hittit (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oglim, the statement about being correct refers to the rules of Wiki. The concerns of neutrality (so to say) are base on a claim, that the denialistic view of the Turkish government isn't vastly composed and presented in the article. Neutrality isn't an issue of a bias being represented in the article or not. Aregakn (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The term Genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This term is refered to what Nazis did during WW II. This should be changed as "crime" in case of what happened in 1915. Cenkdemir (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is enough of a distinction in that there exists the term "Holocaust" for what the Nazis did in WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.93.45 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Presently this term refers to what the UN Genocide Convention is about. Look for it and read it! And for your info, both, the UN and the Genocide Convention occured after WW II but the term existed before it.Aregakn (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And it seems you know not what he said about the term he "invented". It was directly connected to the Armenian Genocide. Have a look: [1] Aregakn (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION. Hittit (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And you just broke the 1 revert rule that is in place on this article. What makes you think that it doesn't apply to you? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well my contribution was initially reverted, why does the 1 revert rule not applicaple to others? Hittit (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's your revert that breaks the rule, not the first one. This is clearly explained in the warning that comes up on the edit screen, which you obviously chose to ignore. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange, some one reverts without justification referenced addition to the article and that is not considered a violations, reverting back is a violation? Is then editing this article a violation in its self, or only for some seleceted editors? Hittit (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you pay attention to the explanation given. You have to discuss a change then to make it. a revert of an undiscussed change IS prohibited. If one cannot read the rules and understand them before making edits, they should do none. Aregakn (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Some one just made a change to the article and removed sourced addition, which was not discussed I expect that you will revert it asap so we can have a throughout disucussion beforehand. Hittit (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should have taken place before the insertion of this extremely biased addition. Sardur (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, so as long as the outcome suits your bias there is no need for discussion, therefore you should have no reason to complain in the future. I can assume then that you will not file a complaint against Diranakir? Hittit (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I? He only made 1 revert, unlike you. Sardur (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to make a warning to you, Hittit, and try to explain the obvious biased changes you are making to this article. The terms you are trying to add do not refer to the issue and content of the article but to the people that express an opinion. Politicians using milding terms like "alleged" etc. for their own political goals of either not offending the turkish government are not what one is allowed to bring into the article as it's part. If you want to note what one politician said, you do it as a citation in the relevant paragraph! The same is about A degree owner. You are trying to bring a or a bunch of degree owners using such terms and make changes to an encyclopedic article in a manner to undermine the whole sense of it acknowledged by the vast majority of both, scholars of history and genocide. Your edits are the very bias the Turkish authorities push. In addition they are made in a manner, that if little by little performed, they are to seed doubt on the issue of the article and not to add value to the article. Once again, concider this a warning for bias pushing trying to present it as an acknowledged manner of presenting the issue (it's not the 1st time you are doing it). Aregakn (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn you are not in a position to make warnings, instead of wasting your time filing complaints against editors determined to achieve NPOV you could actually spend time improving the article.

1) The insinuation of genocide being coined having in mind Armenians in 1915 is a lie or a manipulation the least. Sources clearly state it was created to describe the Nazi Holocaust. How blunt can this get? Any fanciful usage of the word “genocide” to cover the Armenian period of 1915 is something applied much later and with the clear tactic to establish a connection with the victims of Nazi crimes.

2) The so called genocide is alleged If it is still no clear this happens to be one of the most disputed historical topics (nothing is beyond dispute here starting even with the basic fact of what was the Armenian population in Ottoman Turkey to the number of casualties varying from 300 000 to 2 500 0000). The term “alleged-genocide” is used by historians, politicians and government agencies (sources showing examples of the usage “alleged” were effectively deleted). Only some 20 countries it the world have officially recognise this as genocide and that not based solely on historical facts but via voting in national or local parliaments, some in very dubious and bizarre circumstances. Pushing a genocide resolution in some committee with only a single vote difference shows that this is all but an undisputed allegation. So you get one vote more, that makes history rewritten? What happens next time they vote and the "genocide-team" looses? Then we can again rewrite history?

The article needs to take into consideration historically disputed facts, currently it is written in such a manner indicating a single an uncontested truth. We all know this is not the case, main viewpoints of the course and nature of events need to presented. Hittit (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your desire to advocate the bias of the Turkish state in again rewriting history is obvious. That's for sure.

I am in the very position to warn you about bias pushing and whatever else if against the rules of Wiki, so, again, take it as a warning to be careful in this.

To make it more clear to you and comment what you wrote:

1) again, your changes are changing the whole meaning of the article and are too serious to be made without a discussion

2) these discussions were opened (almost every year) and have the same results which you clearly haven't read.

3) moreover, this discussion was taking place on the talk page (once again) when you made the changes

4) your changes were made (breaching 1 revert rule) without having comented in the relevant talk...just like that

5) this kind of behavior of changing the whole meaning of the article without having it discussed and agreed on this very issue, together with the fact that you know (it is shown) your position is in minority, is a disruptive editing

Your comments about the term are irrelevant:

1) as the term, shown on the talk page by documentary and by confirmation of the most reputable genocide study organisations, was inventer to describe the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

2) the invention of the term was after BOTH of them taking place

3) what makes you think a act of genocide can be made only after the invention of the term? (a rhetoric question)

4) do you mean, for example, a murder isn't a murder and not a crime if the term was not invented? (an other rhetoric question)

Your comments about the parliaments and governments of other nations that have admited what happened with Armenians was genocide are unacceptable. You can discuss it or comment them in political clubs etc but this isn't a place we are allowed to discuss and analyse facts. More importantly you fail to see that there are countries that the issue was adopted unanimously and that there were other where because of the political preasure of Turkey what you say happened. There are also other countries, like the US, that this happens already for tens f years and that similar laws are adopted but more than 1 vote overweight, as you claim it, but those cases you leave aside when even, possibly, thinking about the issue. Aregakn (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And you convinietly forget that there are over 200 soverign states in the world only some 10% have recognised or attempted to recognise a so called Armenian Genocide (and these recognitions are clearly politically based and driven by the populous Armenain diaspora worlwide - mind you their numbers having in mind claims of genocide and total obliteration). Stick to the facts the term Genocide was not coined having the Armenians in mind...Hittit (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A very large majority of reliable and specialised historians call it a genocide. Your changes are not respecting WP:UNDUE. This has been addressed over and over in the archives. Sardur (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And one quote on Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide: "It is essential to remember that when Raphael Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he cited the 1915 annihilation of the Armenians as a seminal example of a genocide" (Yair Auron, The banality of denial: Israel and the Armenian genocide, p.9). There are hundreds of similar quotes. Sardur (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And you continuously fail to understand: 1) that the article is not about the acceptation of the Genocide by states 2) that the so called 10% recognition BY LAW doesn't mean others DENY it.

And FYI, everybody knows the importance for politics in the region and the amount of preasure Turkey puts in prevention of recognition, so "10%" in 15 years is a "miracle" for the issue, or, to put it right, regardless miracles, the impossibility to deny it. Anyway, be careful in biased edits! Aregakn (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

lol bias edits ref: (Yair Auron, The banality of denial: Israel and the Armenian genocide, p.9) but e.g., among many others Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson The scientific investigation of mass graves pp.8 stating; The term genocide was coined todescrbe the Holocaust as the majority of sources state that Lemkin (a Polish Jew) coined the term referring to the persecution and extermination of European Jews. Later adoption by Armenians is not related to the reason how and why was the term created. It is false to state the term was coined having the Armenians in mind, basically you can then just as easily state that Lemkin was also thining of the Genocide over Native Americans when he came up with the word. You see the blunt point and importance of correct referencing? No? Hittit (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wishfull thinkings. Did you know that Lemkin himself used the word "genocide" when talking about what happened to the Armenians (exactly "genocide of the Armenians")? See Israel W. Charny, Encyclopedia of genocide, Volume 1, p.79. Sardur (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And btw, when refering to Cox & co (no genocide scholars, on top), you should also read what follows the sentence you quote. Sardur (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems as a well established fact that Lemkin first used the word “genocide” in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government. The current disputed statement in this article is as follows: “It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14] The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events[16]”. The claim in the article is that the word “genocide” was coined having also the Armenians in mind, unless a direct and a clear statement is found in Lemkin’s publication “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government” mentioning Armenians and genocide then this directly proves that Lemkin did not coin the word to describe anything relating to Armenians, othewise he would have mentioned that in the his firs genocide refrences where he mentions several ethnic groups. Reference to genocide and Armenains is seems made much later. Thus the sentece should be corrected as I have many times proppsed: The term genocide was coined todescrbe the Holocaust.Hittit (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That should certainly not be corrected "as [you] have many times proppsed", as there are spelling mistakes in your proposal.

But let's be serious now: what you are asking for right now is to work on a primary source, i.e. to make OR, which is not the way WP works. For the moment, the sentence is sourced by a secondary source. If you want to contest it, find a reliable and specialised source explicitely stating the opposite. Which you haven't done for the moment. Sardur (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim Limkin coined the word genocide and you claim he was describing the Armenians, clearly that was not the case with Limkin...maybe some one else invented the term, you want to fetch another secondary source, more bias for you? So should we now conclude that after correcting the grammar we can change this flaw in the article? Or there is a comma missing somewhere in the sentence and you would like to further protest or find a reason to stall? If you do not like referencing Limikn directly there are other sources to verify that the term was coined to describe the Holocaust so that shouldn’t be a problem either. Secondary sources: Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson "The scientific investigation of mass graves" pp.8 ^ Porpora, Douglas V. How Holocausts Happen Temple University Press, 1990 pp.118. BTW you deleted these from the article before didn't you? Hittit (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I see you quoting a reliable and specialised source? No. What else? Sardur (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, btw, stop assuming what I would claim. I have no pretention writing anything on WP on the basis of what I would claim, whatever it could be. Sardur (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter seems more than clear:

1) Original source by Limkin shows clearly no connection to the first usage of the term “genocide” and Armenians, therefore Limkin should not be quoted as saying “The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events" (Linking Jews and Armenians in this sense is false and manipulating, I think Limkin mentions Serbs but no Armenians).Either this sentence should be removed or corrected to clearly stating that the “word” genocide” was coined to describe the Holocaust and later also adopted to refer to the Armenians (it was not coined to describe this event by Limkin since it is not mentioned in the firs official usage of the word).

2) The provided secondary sources are more than specialised focusing primarily on the scientific investigation of mass graves, mass murder and Halocaust. If these are not specialised sources then nothing is. I am sorry I could not find any suitable Christian Missionary who actually did see something for quotation (you can find those clowns quoted in the current article).I am sure that would have been suitable for you.Hittit (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do mind WP:CIV and remember you have been warned.

None of the sources you have provided so far have been written by genocide scholars recognised by their peers. And none of them explicitely states the opposite of what is mentioned in the article (i.e. something like "not coined to describe the Armenian Genocide"). Sardur (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, that's "Lemkin", not "Limkin". Sardur (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For those, who see not well, read not well, lack some more attention, than needed, or a will to "click" I recommend once more to have this downloaded and heared to know WHAT and HOW Lemkin qualifies the subject of this article: [2]

I promice not to give a thing for any comments or denial of Lemkin not having invented the term "GENOCIDE" to qualify the Armenian Massacres. AND SO I RECOMMEND OTHERS. Aregakn (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter is when and for what purpose was the term “genocide” coined. It is an undisputed fact that that Lemkin first coined the term “genocide” in his publication “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government” in 1944. In this publication the terms is solely used to describe Nazi crimes against the Jews and some other ethic groups. There is no mentioning of Armenians in this point. Any referral at a later stage to “genocide” and Armenians is something post factum. Based on these facts one cannot claim the term genocide was coined and first use to the describe Armenians. As such the current statement in the article claiming otherwise is false and should be corrected.Hittit (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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!

Turkey to expel Armenians

Guys... what do you think of this subtitle and new addition? I added some context to it as it didn't seem separately connected to the Genocide article. Now it is. But I still don't see where it fits. Surely not under the title of reparations. Any suggestions? Aregakn (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it better fits in the article Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide under the section Recent developments. Abisharan (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It certainly is a recent development related to the recognition by Sweden and the affirmation of the House Committee. Does anybody see it in this article though or we should change it? More commenting would contribute to the consensus, guys! Aregakn (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it better fits in the Recognition article, or even the article about Turkish-Armenian relations. --Davo88 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Before my last edit to it, I was thinking of the relationships article. After my edit, I think it relates to both. He? Aregakn (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That is an important fact, but a ridiculous one. It is just the threat of PM Erdoğan, which will not happen. Besides his threat was to expel the ones who doesn't have Turkey citizenship which is legal. He cannot expel all Armenians and he did not mean that. So if you will really add this make sure that you higlightmention these too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf, if there are only several thousands of illegals in turkey it's not reason to tell that they are hostages. This is the pure attitude of the Turkish government and it didn't happen the first time; Tansu Chiler and the previous president also maid such announcements and even in a worse manner. I hope you will justify when Germany threatens to expel all Turkish illegal migrants when I'll tell, it's wrong. Aregakn (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All illegal immigrants should be expelled no matter what their nationality, this includes Armenians and Turks alike, this is becouse their stay in a country is not legalised; and i fail to see why this statement would enrage anyone. Do you not expect you government to filter illegal immigrants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Robertson

The article currently says:

Just a day before, on 9 October 2009 in London, Geoffrey Robertson QC, eminent jurist, barrister and judge, published a detailed legal opinion, entitled "Was there an Armenian Genocide?" which comprehensively and methodically demolished the British Government's reasons for not formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

I am adding a {{POV-statement}} to this sentence because:

• The British government's position is not stated in the article.
• Who says that Geoffrey Robertson legal opinion "comprehensively and methodically demolished the British Government's reasons for not formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide"? If it is not the opinion of a wikipedia editor then the expert who has read the Geoffrey Robertson legal opinion and made such an assessment of the opinion should be cited.

If not such assessment can found then the sentence needs to be reformatted along the line that: The British Government's position is "xyz". In 2009 in a 39 page legal opinion Geoffrey Robertson analysed the Government's position and he "consider[s] that parliament has been routinely misinformed by ministers who have recited FCO briefs without questioning the accuracy. HMG's real and only policy has been to evade truthful answers to questions about the Armenian genocide, because the truth would discomfort the Turkish government."

Also there should be no mention of Robertson's qualifications -- they can be found by following a link to his biography article -- because he is also a controversial figure, and this is not the place to discuss that, so by leaving his qualifications out of this article, there is no need to mention that he is controversial to balance the POV on his implied position in the British establishment that "eminent jurist, barrister and judge," implies. -- PBS (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for information here is a newspaper article by Geoffrey Robertson Free speech and the Armenian genocide The Guardian 9 March 2010. -- PBS (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the article. PBS, I have one remark regarding your comment, that Robertson's qualifications should not be mentioned. A short mention is not only appropriate but also required, because it's one thing to mention a PhD scholar in A university and quite another to mention Robertson's reputation. The readers must be allowed to differ the authors', that express their point on the subject, qualifications (in short) from the article they read and not be requested to click the link to read. We all knows, that more than 90% of the readers won't click the link. Aregakn (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If his qualification is mentioned then to balance the POV implied by that then it also needs to be mentioned that he is a controversial figure. It is much better just to provide the link to his article and let anyone who wishes to make up their own mind on his use as a source.-- PBS (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me the sources of the figure being controversial and we shall see the due/undue. Aregakn (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is one but there are more if you look around. Any practising lawyer who suggests that the British Governments is wrong on this issue is likely to be considered controversial, add to that his suggestion that the Pope should be tried by the ICC.[3] and that the regicides of Charles I were right,[4] etc etc is likely to be considered controversial. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems PBS doesn't understand what the difference of a controversial figure and a controversial book or work is. He didn't bring even any valuable criticism about Geoffrey by any of the latter's notable peers. There was nothing stated but his personal opinion about Geoffrey.

Alfred de Zayas Legal Opinion

The Administrators may consider adding to the bibliography the legal opinion of American lawyer and historian Prof. Alfred de Zayas, which tackles most of the issues raised in this article. A. de Zayas "The Genocide Against the Armenians", with an introduction by the International Commission of Jurists (Geneva). Haigazian University Press, Beirut, Lebanon, February 2010. ISBN 13:078-9953-475-15-8. De Zayas argues that the 1948 Genocide Convention did not create the rights of the Armenians but strengthened them. Already the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 recognized the penal responsibility of the Ottoman leaders (article 230) and the obligation to provide reparation and restitution (article 144). The Genocide convention of 1948 has been applied retroactively to the Holocaust, which occurred 1941-45. There is no reason why it should not be applied retroactively to the Armenian genocide. Indeed, Raphael Lemkin had the Armenian genocide very much in mind in his drafts and memoranda leading to the drafting and adoption of the Genocide Convention. Crimes against humanity are not subject to statutes of limitation and claims for restitution based on genocide or crimes against humanity do not prescribe.217.168.42.242 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

page move

Why is "Genocide" in capital letters? There is nothing to affirm this as a proper noun by itself (unless of course there is an Armenian word for it like the Porajmos) Can we have the main page directed to "Armenian genocide"? (nothings been removed, so i dont see the controversyLihaas (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a term, a name of the event like Berlin Blockade, Leningrad Blockade, Cuban Missile Crisis, United States Air Force etc. The move is wrong. Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural losses

Can anybody see how the recen edit refers to the cultural losses? Because I only 1 sentense partially refering to the cultural losses "churches...monasteries, and graveyards became Turkish state property". This can be kept but I don't see the rest being relevant in this big article. Any comments? Aregakn (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About life under ottoman rules

""Armenia had largely come under Ottoman rule during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Muslim dhimmi system, Armenians, as all Christians, were guaranteed limited freedoms (such as the right to worship), but were in essence treated as second-class citizens. Referred to in Turkish as gavours, a pejorative word meaning "infidel" or "unbeliever",[25] Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law.""

In ottoman empire, Armenians were have a private judgement system which under Armenian Churchs. So their freedoms was dependen their church, not to empire or muslims.They were have their own law. And armenians can be live like a Muslim. Only difference is about to taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.76.220 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The taxes were set inorder to fill in for millitary service. This is becouse every abled body muslim was expected to serve. Armenians as we all kow are orthodox christians therefore did not serve and to compensate for this they had to pay a tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

indiscriminate of gender

Is it really indiscriminate of gender? Esat Cemiloğlu, the eye-witness of the events gave a letter to Naci Kutlay. In the letter, he said:

"Artık kafile başlamıştır. Sivas'tan, Erzincan'dan, Elaziz'den getirilen genç kız ve kadınları kapatma olarak alırlar. M. Ünal'ın babası Asım Efendi bunlardan birini almak ister. Kız yüzüne tükürür ve ‘benim bütün akrabalarım ölürken ben senin keyfini yerine getirmem' der ve kendini nehre atar"

"They took the girls and women from Sivas, Erzincan,and Elaziz as wives(kapatma). Father of M. Ünal, Asım Efendi wanted to marry one of them. The girl says "I cannot make you happy when all my relatives are dying" and throws herself to the river."

This shows that the Kurds forces some Armenian girls to marry them instead of killing them like their relatives. Kavas (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiscriminate as in, they killed both men and women. The fact that some were forced to marry doesn't change the fact that both men and women were targeted. Zeus^u|c 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Split

This page is 148 kilobytes long. I suggest we split this article into smaller, more specific articles including the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide article. That section is too detailed, the only way to keep these details in Wikipedia is to split this section. As time goes on, some details are removed by some user, so we want a seperate page in order to keep the material in WP. Kavas (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)