Talk:Armenian genocide

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!

You better not thank Meowy. An unhonest person who tried to falsify history with sockpuppets.:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy/Archive)

Chonanh (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Germany 's Role in the Armenian genocide

many historians believe that Germany was behind the armenian genocide . armenian genocide and germanys Herero and Namaqua Genocide have some interesting similarities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide can we include a section with germany s role in armenian genocide and the list of german generals during the Armenian genocide . thanks

New section for presenting the Turkish point of view, or link to such an article

There should be a section for conveying the Turkish point of view, or perhaps a link to such an article? Nowhere in this article can an opposing Turkish current point of view be read.

According to an opposing theoretical point of view, this entire article is biased in the opposite direction. This article is designed with references that push the content in a specific intended direction, where in this article can 'facts', content, statements and references be found that OPPOSE an accusation of such a topic? This article is seemingly shaped to DEFEND this topic from being disputed?

If you really are absolutely neutral, you will give room or give opportunity for the Opposing view to be presented.

An 'opposing view' is not something that can be disputed. Also, an opposing view does not require neutrality, it is a perspective. If you consider this article neutral, fine, but still you should have the insight to understand that an opposing current Turkish view to the events of 1915, even though incorrect according to you, is still a point of view that is TRUTH in that it DOES represent A point of view, but necessarily not the actual events.

There are 2 sides in the points of view, yet any rational explanation(s) that present an opposing view is omitted in this article. There may be, for instance, people who do not deny that many died but what is different is: 1) sequence of events, without omitting the big WHY for leaders to take dramatical decisions. (COMPLETELY OMITTED IN CURRENT ARTICLE) Or even more importantly adding more detail to the sequence of events that were the basis for reasoning behind the actions. Also with initial goals and intention behind them by leaders.

2) Same happenings but with view from the other perspective.

Millions and millions of Turks have different points of view to the events If you think Turks are people who go around 'knowing' silently [i] your [/i] truth but still don't say anything because they are ashamed? then you are wrong. 'they', Turks DO base their stance on the topic, on KNOWLEDGE. However incorrect that knowledge be according to you, still it is contradicting enough to not even considering calling the events a Purposeful killing of innocent humans. This perspective, this knowledge is not represented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.0.30 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The section you are requesting already exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Republic_of_Turkey_and_the_Genocide). Please note that for wikipedia article, we cannot use anecdotal information, or original research, and rely solely on notable content provided by reputable sources. That mean that neither pro- or anti- turkish blogs should be used, etc. There may very well be institutional bias in the sense that the majority of english sources feel it was a genocide and that Turkey is deep, deep in denial over it. However, our job here at wiki is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN to discern "truth". We only deal in verifiability. If the majority of sources feel one way, that's what we reflect. Other opinions are certainly open to inclusion, but must be given due weight. Just because there are two opinions on the genocide does not mean they should be given equal time and weight in the article. If one is (as it is) a vastly minority view, it should be treated as such, especially outside of reputable sources stating anything to the contrary.204.65.34.246 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You or anyone won't mind people filling in more details of the Turkish point of view then? Several important things are skipped, such as 'a threat of war with russia', and according to many 'DELUSIONAL' Turks somehow thinking that 'armenians were being mobilized by russians' ? so they had to 'get them out of the battlefield'. Is it allowed to write about these delusions that the Turks seemed to have at the time?

85.96.130.138 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) "We only deal in verifiability. If the majority of sources feel one way, that's what we reflect." Then why pretend the Ottoman archives that state Armenians were relocated? Why pretend that planning for such a big massacre has never been found in the archives? How can one prove that something that "did not happen" actually "did not happen"? Could someone in this forum prove me otherwise if I say "all ducks were killed by Armenians in the western region of Iran during 1899" and come up with verifiable resources??? When it comes to so called genocide, Wikipedia is not fair. There is just too much pressure coming from Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.237.47 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Then why pretend?" The Turkish Archives are full of information that confirms the systematic and organised religious cleansing of Asia Minor. And there are numerous scholars that confirm this in great detail. The question should be "Why deny that it never happened?". If you really want to include the Turkish point of view on this subject it should be placed in a new article with the title: "The Republic of Turkey's Ongoing Denial of the Christian Holocaust" and it should not be limited to the genocide of Armenians although many more Armenians suffered. Fabricating stories of why the genocide did not happen does not correlate with what is in the Turkish Archives.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can start with searching 'Armenian Genocide' in google scholar ( scholar.google.com ) The whole academicians in the world agree that armenian genocide took place. There are only very few exceptions, whose so called research is funded by the turkish government. Wikipedia is a scientific community. If every opinion for every subject is going to appear on wikipedia I can not imagine how it will look like. For example under the subject of Newtons Law I would write that newton had a fourht law in fact which suggest that if you kiss a frog it will turn to a prince. I would also justify this with telling that this is mine and 30 friends of mine opinion.Ali55te (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"The whole academicians in the world agree that armenian genocide took place". Are you kidding? The western/Christian world is not the WHOLE world. And Wikipedia is not a scientific community. Don't exaggerate. Only in topics where politics, religion or history are not involved, we can see a real scientific behaviour. Armenian "genocide" is an example where Wikipedia fails to fulfil it's goals. Completely hijacked by partisans. Chonanh (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bristol Paper

Why there isn't any word about Admiral Bristol's paper in the article?: www.tallarmeniantale.com/Bristol__Mark_Lambert.pdf --88.235.131.65 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because these article is hijacked by Armenians and their supporters. Critical voices are not welcome.

Chonanh (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's Quote

I was suprised that Hitler's famous quote in order to justify his decision about committing genocide "After all who remembers Armenians today?" is not included in the article. I think it is very important but I am not sure which place is the most suitable for this one. Do you have any idea ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Is there any reliable source that proves this? I searched this quote by G00GLE search engine and got less than 100 results (including this page). --88.235.255.13 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wer erinnert sich denn heute noch an die Armenier" in German reflects only 3 results. Armenian tales are getting taller.--88.235.255.13 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is even displayed on the holocaust museum at U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_Armenian_Quote.JPG with the reference. Ali55te (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the holocaust museum at U.S. uses this famous quote.

“Who Remembers the Armenians?”attributed to German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), was in all probability made on August 22, 1939, in a speech to his military chiefs and commanding field generals at his mountain retreat, the Berghof, at Berchtesgaden. (Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs, Dictionary of Genocide: M-Z, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p. 470.)

Hitler quoted the "anihilation of the Armenians" to stimulate the annihilation of Poland and mercilessoperation against "Poles (Hitler used the term Polish speaking race)".

Takabeg (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only the holocaust museum uses this quote. Most of the academicians and governors also use this quote to point out the importance of genocide recognition. The quote shows that if the Armenian Genocide was acknowledged before the world war II and the preparators was punished according to the international law someone would think twice before doing this kind of event again. Ali55te (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For your information, that "SOMEONE" or "SOME PEOPLE" already KNEW very well what Genocide was and They DID NOT THINK TWICE.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide Have a nice day . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.97.247 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As is seen in its article, the Armenian quote is of dubious origin. It is a text given to an American journalist in Berlin by "someone". Two other texts of Hitler's two sepeeches he made on the same day were found, but neither contains any allusions to Armenians. Therefore it is not reliably proved that Hitler made such an allusion to Armenians, therefore its use in an article as if an authentic historical fact would not be correct. Filanca (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What you state is only an Original Research, Filanca. 195.170.108.10 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I based what I wrote above to the Armenian quote article. It looks like well documented. Filanca (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article you mentioned miss lots of information and referenes I will fix that soon. Recently in 2007 a German scholar Richard Albrecht published a book related to this issue and first time he published the original L-3 document http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=160809 and he states that the version which is published by the Louis P. Lochner is the one which is closest to the summery of the Hitler's speech on that day. Ali55te (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read the abstract of Albrecht's article and made some more research. It looks like there is still contraversy regarding the Armenian quote. For example, while Norman Naimark said that we can not be certain if Hitler really referred to Armenians in that speech, in the Armenian quote article, this was written in an ambigious way and rather Mr Naimark's words "Nazi leadership was surely aware of the Armenian genocide" were emphasized -- I do not say the second is unimportant, but as for the authenticity of this quote, his direct remark on it is more relevant. I've wrote Mr Naimark's opinion about the authenticty of the quote in an unabiguous way. I've also added another recent source questioning the Armenian quote. I've gathered all those in the "contesting interpretations" section since the entrance paragraph was becoming bloated. Filanca (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The most recent person I've read commenting on the quote has been Margaret Lavinia Anderson, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, in a book published this year. She writes "we have no reason to doubt the remark [i.e., the Armenian Quote] is genuine" ("Who Still Talked about the Extermination of the Armenians: German Talk and German Silences" in A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, ed. R. Suny (Oxford, 2011), p. 199). I posted this on the talk page of the Armenian Quote article some months ago.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not think that I want to speculate here but there are so many reasons that I can not understand how she can be so sure. War Crimes Tribunal rejeted to use the document as evidence after examining it. Lechner, the journalist who is the sole source of the document, when asked where he obtained it, spoke vaguely about some person whose name he could not fully remember. That principal source person never came up and told how he obtained the document of a secret speech of Hitler. Lechner used to participate a campaign to grant self-determination rights to minorities in the Ottoman Empire, including Armenians and named use of propaganda to reach that aim. Honestly, I feel like there is good reason to doubt the quote is a forgery. Filanca (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Document 1014-PS includes the quote as the Lochner writes(attack to Poland and who remember the Armenians today part). As a result it does not matter if L-3 is not offered as evidence during trials. Ali55te (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is written as "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" in German. Ali55te (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the source about 1014-PS containing the Armenian quote? Filanca (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally people get back their senses. I applaud you for removing this falsification attributed to Hitler in the article. Definitely more will follow in the coming years. It's hideous to see an article with so much lies and fraud selling as the truth (with the Hitler quote this had been done here for years).Chonanh (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal explanation

On 29 June 1915 Mehmet Talaat Pasha send a telegram to the governor of Diyarbakır after he received information about the systematic massacare of Christian population there. In the telegram Mehmet Talaat Pasha ordered to stop the deportation of non-Armenian christian elements in Diyarbakır beacuse of deportation has a high chance to end in massacre (http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=100). The telegram clearly shows that Mehmet Talaat Pasha was aware that the deportations will cause the massacre of the deported groups.

is personal explanation/interpretation of document by User:Ali55te. I'm afraid that such propaganda will help denial of the Armenian Genocide. We must provide information without propagandas, personal point of views Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Takebag. Thank you for your constructive criticism. Now I added all the necessary references you can see it. The only point is that using the term propaganda is not a polite way. I also used that term before and now I realized that it is not good to use it. I wrote that edit fast. Now all the references are there. Ali55te (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The document in the website of Turkish Historical Society said (I'm sorry but my English is not good.):

To the governor of Diyarbakir, (cypher)

Recently, we took notice that massacres were committed against Armenians and other all Christians within the province, and then, by the agency of persons who had been sent to Diyarbakir, that some seven hundred people of Marhasa in Mardin, Armenians, and other Christian inhabitants were taken outside of the city at night and slaughtered like sheep, and that the total of those killed to date in these massacres is estimated at two thousand. and that they were afraid that if this is not ended speedily and definitey, the Muslim inhabitants of neighboring provinces would rise up and engage in a general slaughter of Christians.

Because it's not appropreate that the political measures that was assumed to take Armenians under control would be extended and be adopted to the other Christians, such kind of events that can have a very negative efect on public opinion, and especially can threaten the lives of Christians, must be ended immideately and the facts must be clarified.

The Turkish Historical Society uses this document to prove that Talaat Pasha had not known about massacres, and that he made effort to stop massacres and clarify the facts. Takabeg (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkish Historical Society is an organization of the Turkish Government as a result their interpretation of the events can be accepted as a last choice. The interpretation of international and independent academicians is mostly reliable and can be used as facts. I did not put the whole telegram because if we start to put everything the page will become huge. If anyone thinks that I did something wrong when I summarize it feel free to change it. Ali55te (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondly the link contains only the telegram and it does not matter if it linked on another page for some other purposes. The telegram itself is an evidence. Ali55te (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are different explanations on Talat's this telegram:

• According to Henham, Talat emphasized the importance given to the protection of the lives of the Armenian and Christian populations (Ralph J. Henham, The Criminal Law of Genocide: International, Comparative and Contextual Aspects, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p. 24.)
• According to Akçam, "Talat's instruction was to exempt the non- Armenian Christians from the persecution" (Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, Zed Books, 2004, p. 175.)
• Hans-Lukas Kieser quoted Akçam.

I don't know whether Akçam manipulated or not. I don't know whether Turkish Historical Society fudged up documents or not. I cannot take Akçam's interpretation with this document and its interpretation to modern Turkish.

Takabeg (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans-Lukas does not quote Taner Akcam, he quotes directly with using the book that I referred in the paragraph. Secondly the point here is the one mentioned by Taner Akcam in the book you mentioned, but you ommited the most imporant two sentences "The wording of the document is very clear. People including government officials, are being killed by order of the governer. But this not important to Talat, Clearly his instruction was to exempt the non-Armenian christians from prescution Ali55te (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And most most importantly the book of Henhamp.24, the author makes that statement with referencing a speech from Şükrü Elekdağ writing which is a politican in Turkey. This is not accaptable.Ali55te (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ommit "The wording of the document is very clear. People including government officials, are being killed by order of the governer. But this not important to Talat, Clearly his instruction was to exempt the non-Armenian christians from prescution". This is explanation of Akçam and irrelevant to this document. Takabeg (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When we interpret this document to the letter, we cannot get explanation of Akçam. Takabeg (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Taner Akçam puts the second part of the telegram which you translated from the page of turkish historical societ just several hours ago and it sits several paragraph up in this discussion. Read the whole paragraph from the book. How can you state that taner akçam is not speaking about that telegram ? Apart from that you did omit the statement you never mentioned that part before I mention it it is clear in the logs Ali55te (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim on Henham and Elekdağand reminded me of an users claim on Bilal Şimşir's British Foreign Office records in Talk:Occupation of Constantinople#Sources. Takabeg (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this article ? What does it have to do with the telegram of Talat Paşa ? This is an unaccaptable behaviour in a discussion like this. Ali55te (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't accept a source, only because the author is a Turkish politician. Other user couldn't accept source, only because the editor is a Turkish diplomat. Both claims are not reasonable, because original documents they used are same content everywhere. Takabeg (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sukru Elekdag is not only a politican he is known as one of the politican with far-right political point of view. http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=20949 Ali55te (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of the telegram according to Akçam is July 12, 1915. Date of the telegram on the Turkish Historical Society is June 29, 1915. Most other details match, like the sender and receiver, estimated number of deaths at 2,000 people and concern over lives of Christians in general together with the translation of the last paragraph. However, Akçam also writes it is clear from the telegram that "government officials are being killed" while this is not indicated in the text of the telegram on the Turkish Historical Society's web site. Talat Pasha might have written two similar telegrams within two weeks. But even if they are different, the two telegrams would be so similar that one may be justified to think that Akçam's comments are related to both. Filanca (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. User shew only one document and omitted original meaning. These edits must be considered as fake. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Taner akcam uses the document 71 in "Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler" you can look at teh 102th reference which is used in the book. I found the document from the Turkish government website. http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/Handlers/hhFile.ashx?Id=b7087217-ab97-4139-bd51-9a4384f88e0e If you cheeck the document 71 which is located in the page 98 of the pdf document or (66 as it written on the page) you will see that it is the same document as the one I used here I paste it :

Diyârbekir Vilâyeti'ne

Son zamânlarda vilâyet dâhilindeki Ermeniler ile bilâ-tefrîk-i mezheb Hırîstiyanlar hakkında katl-i âmlar tertib olundugu ve ez-cümle ahîren Diyârbekir'den sevk olunan eshâs vâsıtasıyle Mardin'de murahhasa ile Ermenilerden ve diger Hırîstiyan ahâlîden yedi yüz kisinin geceleri sehirden hârice çıkarılarak koyun gibi bogazlatdırıldıgı ve simdiye kadar bu katl-i âmlarda maktûl olanların iki bin kisi tahmîn olundugu ve buna serî‘ ve kat‘î bir netîce verilmezse civâr vilâyâtdaki ahâli-i �slâmiyenin de kıyâm ederek bi'l-umûm Hırîstiyanların katletmelerinden korkuldugu istihbâr edilmisdir. Ermeniler hakkında ittihâz edilen tedâbir-i inzibâtiye ve siyâsiyenin diger Hıristiyanlara tesmîli kat‘iyyen gayr-i câ’iz oldugundan efkâr-ı umûmiyye üzerinde pek fenâ te’sîr bırakacak ve bi'l-hâssa ale'l-itlâk Hıristiyanların hayâtını tehdîd edecek bu kabîl vekâyi‘a derhâl hitâm verilmesi ve hakîkat-ı hâlin is‘ârı. Fî 29 Haziran sene [1]331

You can see the telegram is sent on 29 Haziran which is June 29 exactly matches with the reference I give (the users does not know turkish can use google translate http://translate.google.com and then type "29 Haziran" from Turkish -> English) and the text also matches which is written in old turkish and on ttk website it is written the the text is converted to modern turkish but anyway any turkish user can read this one easily. The biggest irony here is that you find the reference from Taner akcam and then you started to deny that is does not related to this telegram. Ali55te (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The telegram you found in the government archive seems to match with that on the Historical Society's web site. Some details of that telegram does not match with the one mentioned in Akçam's book, like the date and partially content (about killings of government officials). Filanca (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.157.58.98, 14 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change Constantinople to Istanbul.

91.157.58.98 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that Istanbul became the offical name in 1930. Since the events in this article predate 1930, it may be that Constantinople should still be used here. How to other articles on subjects prior to 1930 handle this? Hmains (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical references always use "Constantinople" to refer to the city, "Istanbul" was not it's official name until 1930. For references after 1930, the name "Istanbul" would be used. KettleCooker (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the above - and, no reference -

 Not done  Chzz  ►  04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te)

We must remove edits of User:Ali55te. If we permit his/her edits, he/she may give up. Because he/she will know all of his/her efforts will become wasted. If we don't permit his/her edits he/she mill come back here. Especially dealing with Turkish sources, we have to pay attention to the fact that User:Ali55te twisted sources for his/her own original explanation. Above all, we must not make forhabitual offenders like him/her to get a taste of sockpuppecy.

Same discussion is continuing in Talk:Istanbul Pogrom#Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te). Takabeg (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Music Update

We need to include "Yes, It's Genocide" by Serj Tankian under Music, it also about this tragedy. Serj is Armenian, and the song is completely in Armenian as well. Sicarius001 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article should clarify (at least once) that Constantinople is modern day Istanbul

Many readers may not even be aware that it is the same physical place. The point is to situate the reader geographically. Thus, I believe this could achieved by replacing "Constantinople" by "Constantinople (modern day Istanbul)" in the first mention without any lose of Historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryseriousperson (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

non partisan

but this link striked me as bias and unscholarly

^ "The Jihad Rampant in Persia" by Rev. Robert M. Labree--reporting from Tabriz, Persia July 1915:

" The Christians were the most prosperous people of the community; so their houses were well furnished with all the comforts of an Eastern home, and their stables were filled with the best of cattle. They were naturally envied by their poorer Moslem neighbors, who welcomed the popular doctrine that in the time of a "jihad" the property as well as the lives of Christians is lawful prey to Mohammedan."