Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Armenian genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

THE NEUTRALITY OF THE ARTICLE ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE

If "Armenian Genocide" was carried by an international agreement or if there was a INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION about this case, it could be OFFICIAL and LEGAL ,after that you can put the "Armenian Genocide" as an article in this ENCYCLOPEDIA. Recognisation of this case by USA , UN (It was not recognised officially and by accord as "Armenian Genocide" in UN General Congress) , European Countries does not make it OFFICIAL AND LEGAL , recognisation of a case in a country is about territorial law , but this case is an international law case , and in territorial it is the problem of the Turkey and Armenia. Armenian Genocide is not official to the international law and it is illegal , WHY? BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECOGNISED OR CARRIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE HAS HAPPENED. WIKIPEDIA CAN NOT BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHILE IT IS CONTAINING UNOFFICAL AND ILLEGAL ARTICLES. I hope you will understand that what are you doing. Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow these:

Have a nice day and life Mr THOTH and Mr FADIX -- aozan

Then wikipedia should not have articles about e.g. Northern Cyprus nor mention it anywhere since it's not internationally recognized, or Holocaust denial for that matter. The fact that a topic is controversial (or just against the interests of some party) shouldn't prevent it from being included. EpiVictor 11:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about legal cases of international law, so this statement seems as a nonsense. Also, internationally there are only post-WWII genocides investigated by courts, so this statement seems as a nonsense also because of its pseudo-legal claims too. --Gvorl 12:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose you, to before saying noensense, to read the entry you're trying to kill.

Fadix, I think you simply misunderstood me :-) Wikipedia is not about legal cases of international law: this means that Wikipedia is not site studying international law cases and as such it can not pretend to anlyse which case should be treated as legally proved or unproved or which court decission should be treated as correct or incorrect or was some court authoritative on some decision or not, etc., so it it is a nonsense to go here with argument like "international court hasn't made decision". The only legal thing which can be used here - it is references to legal sources and their decisions, but not our legal evaluations. Also, because of Armenian genocide was far before invention of international laws related to genocides (and even invention of genocide term), nobody can expect that this case will be investigated in any authoritative international courts responsible for genocide cases. So, Armenian genocide simply is a case which forms foundation to analysis of genocides as one of cases which clearly illustrates definition of genocide term, and this is deliberatelly shown as such by Raphael Lemkin. --Gvorl 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the official recognition we find: "United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." It was voted and passed. On the same list we find: "International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)" and "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal." To this add the section in the entry regarding the Military trials conducted in Istanbul that followed the Mazhar commission. On the talk page, I've posted materials regarding the UN report of 1948 regarding the Armenian massacres months before the introduction of the genocide convention. I have posted records from Lemkin the person who coined the term genocide. While, there are legal ground to call the event "Armenian genocide" if there were no, it won't exclude it from Wikipedia, the Association of genocide scholars, the largest association grouping genocide researchers, call it such, most of Western historians call it such. Like it or not, it is the official version in the accademic world, and as the official position, this version of history should have its place. Fadix 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is just another pathetic non-argument - but I think that the findings in 1984 of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal are partticularly relevent here and I am going to post some exerpts. It is important to note thet the UN tribunal extensivly considered the Turkish denials and looked for evidence to contradict the Genocide claim vbut could find no basis for belief in the Turkish counter-claims:

UN Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, Verdict of the Tribunal

April 16, 1984

Verdict of the Tribunal

"...the basic grievance of massacre and extermination is fixed in time sixty-nine years ago in 1915. The Tribunal is convinced that its duties include the validation of historic grievances if these have never been properly brought before the bar of justice and acknowledged in an appropriate form by the government involved.

In this instance, the basis for an examination and evaluation of these Armenian allegations is especially compelling. Every government of the Turkish state since 1915 has refused to come to grips with the accusation of responsibility for the genocidal events.

Particularly relevant in this regard are the charges of deliberate destruction, desecration, and neglect of Armenian cultural monuments and religious buildings. The Tribunal adopts the view that charge of the crime of genocide remains a present reality to be examined and, if established, to be appropriately and openly acknowledged by leaders of the responsible state. The victims of a crime of genocide are entitled to legal relief even after this great lapse of time, although this relief must necessarily reflect present circumstances.

III. The Evidence The Tribunal is invited to pronounce judgement on the charge of genocide brought on the basis of the events of 1915-1915.

IV. The Turkish Arguments The Tribunal has examined the Turkish arguments as set forth in the documents submitted to it.

There can be no doubt that the Armenians constitute a national group within the definition of the rule outlawing genocide. This conclusion is all the more evident since they constitute a people protected by the right to self determination which necessarily implies that they also constitute a group, the destruction of which is outlawed by virtue of the rule pertaining to genocide.

There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal. In its examination of the case the Tribunal has focused primarily on the massacres perpetrated between 1915 and 1917, which were the most extreme example of a policy which was clearly heralded by the events of 1894-1896.

The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948.

The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. The Tribunal notes on the one hand, however, that in addition to the atrocities committed by the official authorities, the latter also used malicious propaganda and other means to encourage civilian populations to commit acts of genocide against the Armenians. It is further observed that the authorities generally refrained from intervening to prevent the slaughter, although they had the power to do so, or from punishing the culprits, with the exception of the trial of the Unionists. This attitude amounts to incitement to crime and to criminal negligence, and must be judged as severely as the crimes actively committed and specifically covered by the law against genocide.

On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification.

For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact.

The Tribunal notes that one of the most serious consequences and one of the most disturbing effects of genocide - above and beyond the irreparable wrongs inflicted upon its immediate victims - is the degradation and perversion of humanity as a whole.

For These Reasons

in answer to the questions which put to it, the Tribunal hereby finds that:

the Armenian population did and do constitute a people whose fundamental rights, both individual and collective, should have been and shall be respected in accordance with international law;

the extermination of the Armenian population groups through deportation and massacre constitutes a crime of genocide not subject to statutory limitations within the definition of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948. With respect to the condemnation of this crime, the aforesaid Convention is declaratory of existing law in that it takes note of rules which were already in force at the time of the incriminated acts;

the Young Turk government is guilty of this genocide, with regard to the acts perpetrated between 1915-1917;

the Armenian genocide is also an 'international crime' for which the Turkish state must assume responsibility, without using the pretext of any discontinuity in the existence of the state to elude that responsibility;

this responsibility implies first and foremost the obligation to recognize officially the reality of this genocide and the consequent damages suffered by the Armenian people;

the United Nations Organization and each of its members have the right to demand this recognition and to assist the Armenian people to that end.--THOTH 16:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Credit user:aozan with writing the best talk page header I've seen in a while. "Unofficial And Illegal Articles"? Without those, what else would we have? -Willmcw 17:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd laugh too if it were not for the seriousness of this issue and the blatant and aggrresive official (and illegal) campaign of Turkish denial! --THOTH 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken in this point, I think we should take this warning seriously about policy of wikipedia. --krasnoya

Facts will be presented and a proper chronolgy laid out. Are you saying that you have a problem with this? Is there some overiding reason why Wikipedia policy should be to promote untruths and distortions (as something other then what they are)? --THOTH 20:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one can acknowledge or deny "Armenian Genocide" on Wikipedia. If you acknowledge it in here someone can create an article as "American Indian Genocide" , "Basque Genocide" , "Genocide by France in Algeria", "Genocide by Spain against the Natives of the Southern America" etc. But if there was a judgement of international court about war crimes or an agreement that says "Turkey is responsible of the Armenian Genocide" ,this case could be official. The thing you do in here is looking like to say that "Antonio Meucci is not the inventor of the Telephone , the inventor of the telephone is Graham Bell" (In here the important thing is what is officially done). So you should write to here "According to the many historians and evidences there was a Genocide and it's responsible is Turkey or Turks , but according to the some other historians and evidence there was not a genocide or there was massacre activities against the Turks and Kurds by Armenians too... "

Historically, Armenian genocide was before invention of genocide term, so usage of genocide term in this case can not be restricted because of any legal presumptions. Also, genocide term is not only legal term, so it can be used anyway. Secondary, it was mentioned in the definition of genocide term used by UN and currently existing international courts, as a case which illustrates what genocide is. So, Armenian genocide together with Holocaust are indirectially meaned in any international court decission which can be made in any genocide investigation at all. So, if you are trying to do some questioning of Armenian genocide, I would like to suggest you do not mention any legal definitions. --Gvorl 08:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not questioning the Armenian Genocide, I am questioning that is this article suitable to the Wikipedia Policies. Wikipedia is not a FORUM, no one can DENY or ACKNOWLEDGE something in Wikipedia.

Please see the Wikipedia:NPOV policy, which is the Wikipedia way of addressing highly controversial topics such as this. Note that by describing other people's verifiable statements, NPOV allows the reader to make up their own mind about the truth or falsity of the proposition being described in the article. -- The Anome 11:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

At last. Thanks , this is what I wanted to hear , the NEUTRALITY of this article is OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE. Thanks to you :-)

Now I want to ask if that thing is real , why there is a DISPUTED TAG on this article about "Armenian Genocide" or "So-Called Armenian Genocide" ? Why there isn't a DISPUTED TAG on the Jewish Holocaust Article? Because the Jewish Holocaust is a reality , but Armenian Genocide is not a reality, because it is the propaganda of the Armenian Diaspora and Imperialist Countries , because they couldn't destroyed the Anatolian Republic both by military power and terrorism.

Encyclopedia is not a propaganda tool. -- aozan

Oh dear. There's clearly no reasoning with you; you have taken my comments in the opposite sense to that meant. The article is already framed in NPOV terms; perhaps it could be better, but the essentials are this:

Many people believe lots of Armenians were killed
Some commentators believe that this is not the case
Most of those who believe that lots of Armenians were killed believe that the term "genocide" applies
Some commentators believe that it does not.
Some also want to mention deaths of Turks from internecine violence.

All of the above can be framed in NPOV terms. If there are still arguments about sources for statements, cites should be given.

-- The Anome 13:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] .com/69881/120.html [8] [9]

I am asking again the questions above- aozan.

And I'm asking you again if, with the same mentality, articles and referenced to Northern Cyprus and Holocaust denial should be removed. It's not about the Armenian problem, but they both are "officially unrecognized".

I don't remember that I defended the Northern Cyprus and Jewish Holocaust Denial ,if I did show me where I did this?

Also, has anybody though of making a Armenian Genocide denial article, since it is so controversial and since there are so many sources to back it up? Take the Genocide denial article as a base. EpiVictor 14:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am against the Armenian Genocide Denial article too because this is not official too. Because defending the denial is a propaganda too. In my opinion Wikipedia is not a PROPAGANDA tool , NO ONE CAN DENY IT ALSO on Wikipedia. But in talk page everybody can tell their decision I think , I am talking about the articles only, not the talk pages. And again I am not your enemy , but if you think that the opposite about me (because I am a Turk), I surrender

Armenia Rejects Turkey's Dialogue Call

March 11, 2005

Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan: “There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians”

Jan SOYKOK

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHP ’s Leader Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said on Tuesday " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides… Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives… We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment.” However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the ‘genocide’ argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as ‘genocide’.

Conflict resolution

Gvorl thinks he knows a way to deal with such conflicts, he present his proposition here and we discuss. I have also a proposition. First, Thoth thinks he can do better with the article, I proposed him to try merging the information already in the article in his attempt and present it here. I will edit it. And after completing this, Yce could give his opinion and make propositions. We could then cut pieces by pieces the edit and propose a suggestion for each pieces and if they are OK. Then, we could pass to a vote, not on if what is writen in the article are facts or not, but rather if the positions are correctly presented.

After this, we may perhaps change this version, and after completing it, adding a banner like this.

Please read the Talk:Armenian_Genocide (and its archives) before making any substantial changes, and post your editing proposals there first. Otherwise, your edits might be revoked.

Fadix 19:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the conflict

I would like to emphasize few things about this conflict at first. This conflict is really unsolvable (see below, "Situation"). Leave any hope that any position (Armenian or Turkian) will become accepted by opposing side. The only thing we can do here - make positions as clear as possible and avoid further conflicts.

This Wikipedia conflict is a continuation of the conflict which started maybe 100 years ago. And now, in Wikipedia, somebody can win only by consensus: you can win something only if you yeld to something. I would like to suggest strong formalization of the discussion: such formalisation will be something you'll give to each other to win the some truth.

And the last thing (it is only my opinion, I do not pretend to discuss it here): both sides of this conflict were victims. And not victims of the each other, but victims of the some corrupted political group. Try to understand this: not only armenians but turks too were victims and both was used by the same government, but simply in different ways.

Sure Turks were victims - many Turkics and other Muslims suffered terribly in years of 19th centry primarily as the Empire collapsed. And all Ottoman citizens suffered under the yolk of misrule of the Sultans in recent centuries that could not adapt to the changing times and fortunes. And all suffered from the horrible zealotry and desperation of the CUP/Young Turks...agreed...and all suffered due to the horros of World War I - in differening degrees...but only the Armenians experienced a Genocide as a people and only Armenians were deliberatly set upon and exterminated and were subject to mass barbarities and cruelties beyond immagination - and until this is examined in proper perspective it is impossible to likewise accuratly examine and understand all of these other events. One cannot concoct a false history of one period and expect to portray and understand prior and subsequant historical events - these are all related and interconnected and cannot be accuratly seen in isolation or through the lens of falsity. --THOTH 02:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, most of formal and structural things I had presented below --Gvorl 12:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasons and possible solutions

Situation

At first, what we have? We have a conflict which is unsolvable in Wikipedia at all:
- There are two different positions which strongly opposes each other
- Reasons for this are not in people who discuss here
- Reasons for this conflict are outside (not in Wikipedia community)
- Those reasons are strong enough to keep this article conflict active for unlimited time

Resolution

What we can do here? Mainly - avoid discussions if possible, formalize discussions when they start:

Try to write this article from outside position, which would be outside of the conflict between two sides. Position of some imaginary chinese or estonian researcher would be good enough.
General politcorrectnes:
- No personalities:
  - No any personal attacks.
  - No any analysis of people who are involved into discussion.
  - Discuss the claims but not the people.
- No generalization:
  - Do not claim that genocide was performed by turks or turkian nation (murderer is not a nationality).
  - Do not claim that genocide was performed by Turkey, or even Ottoman Empire as a nation (somebody was against, yes?).
  - Do not claim that armenians or armenian nation was guilty.
  - Do not claim that turks or turkian nation was guilty.
  - Do not claim that any massacres were legitimate because of any actions somebody performed.
  - Do not value any nations at all.
  - Account only the actions performed only by concrete political group.
Factual analysis:
- Stop any analysis of things which are not theme of this article.
- Stop searching the truth (documented facts will show it).
- Start searching for the documents.
- Discuss and describe the terms you use.
- Discuss the sources you use:
  - Is it direct source (e.g. Ottoman Empire document or direct evidence)?
  - Is it indirect source (e.g. later historical analysis)?
  - Specify time period you are discussing about.
General formalisation:
- Each discussion topic should be checked at first for suiting the topic of the article. No irrelevant things should be discussed.
- Each proposition should be documented as possible, references should be used.
- Each change in the article should be discussed before, any undiscussed article changes should be rejected absolutelly unconditionally.
Article reorganisation:
- The topic of the article and the discussed terms should be neutrally described on the top of all and without any claims, if possible (facts should be separated from description of terms).
- Article should be divided according to possible discussion topics.
- As much as possible things should be moved to the other articles.

Cyclic repetitions

The most specific process in discussions here - cyclic repetition of discussion topics. For example, discussion about sources, discussion about international recognition, discussion about armenian terrorists, etc.. Such repetitions interfere with any effective factual analysis, so I would like to suggest one thing:

After some topic was discussed, describe final positions and important data you got.
- Such description of final positions should be acceptable for all and it should not describe "reality" or "truth", but only positions, claims and facts which are presented by the discussion participants.
Then freeze this discussion topic.
Any further discussion on such topic should be performed only after new facts on the topic are got.
Any other tries to repeat such discussion should be rejected unconditionally.

Why are Turkish nationalists turning fact such as the Armenian Genocide into debate, it happend, proof from both Armenians themselves and foreign witnesses who were there at the time and saw it for themselves such as American doctor Clarence Ussher whose notes on the events he saw were made into a film entitled Ararat (which was discredited in Turkey) There is no need to see "both" sides of the coin, how would people feel if Germany began to deny the holocaust and begin to focus on the poor SS men who were killed during the Warsaw uprising or various other concentration camp uprisings by Jews, we would be appaulled if this happend. Turks need to forget what they were taught by their own bias schools whose curriculum taints the truth, the world knows what happend, the world saw what happend and there is a Turkish conspiracy to hide and cloud the truth from their own people and the rest of the world.

I think it is not possible to answer to this "why?". Simply here is such situation that we have two different positions. And we all (all the Wikipedia community) can not simply decide here that one position is right and other one is wrong, because of some of us actually are supporting different positions. Wikipedia is a community driven by actual consensuses but not by elitism (authorities). So, here is the only way which (I hope) can be successful for both sides: write article in such manner that it would be impossible to discuss its accuracy, and not by simply presenting contradictory POVs, but simply by structure where each fact or consequence of facts can be analyzed clearly. Strictly defining subject and terms, clearing the structure and grading the sources may be the way. And discussion topics freezing is simply needed to calm down any flames and get to actual analysis. --Gvorl 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its hopeless anyway really. When you have one side (that is attempting to deny and hide the guilt of their nation) that absolutly cannot accept the truth - and the other "side" (the rest of humanity basically) is expected to cave in to this? You are now saying (above) that we cannot claim that the Ottoman Turkish Government directed and carried out a Genocide against its ethnic Armenian population? ...When this is proven fact...come now...but yes - we are essentially held hostage in forum such as this. The product will be watered down to the point of meaninglessness - as it already has been. Whatever...--THOTH 02:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last thing about Ottoman Empire is simply politcorrectnes: No all the Otoman Empire people was responsible for any casualities. The some GOVERNMENT or political group was reponsible for any. When you distinct such things like difference between country (people) and government (political group), you get much more understanding from your opponent. (I had emphasised as bad thing exactly claims against the country (or its people), but not against the government). It is simple: any accusation interfere with any positive discussion. Actually, in the abstract, you can write good and truthful article without politcorrectnes, but it will be very difficult, simply because lots of your opponents will hamper the development. --Gvorl 03:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understood - however it does no one any good to perpetuate (or accomodate) untruths. The fact of the matter is that a substansial portion of the Ottoman Muslim population was involved in the killing of Armenians and the appropriation of their fixed and transportable property and capital. Sure - a great many Turks and Kurds were disgusted by what they saw the government and the Turkish gangs ad such doing to the Armenians and many common Turks and Kurds did what they could - there are a great many stories of such and many Armenians owe their lives to Turks and Kurds of this period. But the fact remains that a good deal of the population was roused to bloodlust and savegry through - jihad - racist venting - jealous greed - revenge for past mistreatment and expulsion by other Orthodox - etc and such and these Muslims repeatedly fell upon the Armenians with great fury and were more then happy to carry out the CUP directed vengence against the Armenians. So how to say that in a politically correct manner eh? But it must be said - it must be demonstrated and the evidence is available and indisputable....--THOTH 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, can you provide us what you mean by "substansial portion of the Ottoman Muslim population"? Give us a figure so that we know what you're talking about. Was it 50%? Was it 2 million? What do your sources say about it? --Muz 00:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muz - nearly every account of Armenian towns being emptied contains accounts of Muslims/Turks maltreating Armenians - verbally and physically, as well as taking their goods (including livestock), money, and ultimatly of course taking their homes and fixed posessions. Nearly every story of a deportation caravan that has been reported describes incidents of the Armenians being acosted by portions of the local populations in the regions that they passed through - again with violence of all types. Additionally there are a great many incidents reported where Muslims were directly incited to violence by religious authorities - often times durning religious services - after which the mob set upon Armenians and massacred them and either destroyed or seized their properties - or both. The period of Rhamadan saw a dramatic increase in this violence according to numerous reports. And there are countless documentation of all of these acts.

While the Special Organization and the CUP trusted agents were the primary means of implementation of the Genocide much of the violence was conducted by local populations incited toward hatred and violence. These populations - many of whom were refugees from the Balkans and Crimea and the Caucuses were already predisposed against the Armenians as were most Muslims due to their intense resentment of the Tanzimat reforms and associated Armenian status gains (fictional or otherwise) and repeated calls by Armenians for foreign power assistance in their plight. Again there are a myriad of sources for this material - I don't know of any cumulative figures - and of course mostly Turks who were in proximity to Armenians and their deportation routes, concentration (tranist & death) camps and such could participate - however there are accounts (admissions) of Turks (from various removed places in the Empire) signing up to join special organization bands just for the opportunity to kill and pillage the Armenians. The latter motivation - economic - was no small factor on the part of both common Turks as well as CUP and Ottoman regional officials - for participating in the Genocide of Armenians. When I actually get to writing some sections I will do my best to thoroughly document my sources.

One problem I am having as I review my materials is that I have a great deal more detailed information that I can ever possibly fit in an article of this type. believe me - every day I have been going over my library and reading and marking passages. I think I will surprise many of you with the nature of some of my sources - many of which are from noted historians not in any way directly connected with the Armenian Genocide issue per se. As I have long had an interest in military history I have a fair library of treateses on World War I - many of which are currently out of print. Of course for detailed accounts of actual Genocide events sources tend to fall within the commonly known accouts - of whcih there is a plethora and which interestingly all tend to corraborate the chronology, methods employed, personalities and specific events.

My proposed outline for this section will include sections that will specifically detail not only specific defining events but also short bios of main perpetrators and their significant actions and admissions. In the methodology of the Genocide section I would expect to include details of Muslim/Turkish civilian participation in Genocidal actions - massacres and other deprivations. Likewise I do think it will be important to note the great many of Turks and Kurds who objected to what they saw occuring around them and took various actions - under penalty of death - to aid and assist Armenians as they could. This is all part of the story that must be told--THOTH 02:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Gvorl proposition for conflict resolution.

I may have few problems in some points,(because of the possible wrong interpretation of them) but all in all I think it might be a good start. I do believe though, that the points regarding neutrality I have selected and included in my user page User:Fadix is an essencial add-in to Gvorl proposition, more particularly those in bold.

To Thoth and the other user that answered, I think reading few pages on how Wikipedia works, and trying to really understand the concept, will make you guys realise that what Gvorl proposes will NOT LEAD to a reletivzation or neither the denial of the genocide. Just to compare, the actual article, which is near NPOV, adhere more or less to Gvorl "rules," can you call it a revisionist entry?

Thoth, I told you, work and make propositions, the only thing I ask you, is to merge the informations of the present article in the new work, because those are essential points which should not be ignored. Yce, you are open for propositions too. Fadix 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I specially haven't entered things about viewpoints presentation because it is thing which can not be formalised directly. But I hope that balanced presentation of views can be assesed by some audit of sources which would classify them as direct and indirect ones. Also, I already see that few points I had entered (e.g. politcorrectness) were bit misunderstood, so I will bit clarify them. --Gvorl 05:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current article - while it certainly has good information that can and I supose will be kept - is inadequate in a number of was. The English usage is somewhat marginal and their is no overarching presentation - it is a bit of a grab bag. It emphasizes some things and entirely neglects to present a great amount of material that is equally compelling. Overall it fails to convey the genocide as a serioes of historical events in a manner that conveys to the casual reader a proper understanding of what really went on to whom by whom and for what reasons - nor does it adequatly cover the factors for why such a thing occured or the reasons why recognition (knowledge) of such events is generally lacking among most people today. I do strongly believe that an entire seperate section concerning (Armenian) Genocide denial is warrented considering the fact that it is a current ongoing unresolved international issue in the world today. I propose to cover the intital failures of the post-war peace process and competition among the allies for territory and commercial concesions, the sucess in the Nationalist revolution and the elimination of Armenians and the Armenian State, Cold War issues, Armenian campaigns for Genocide recognition, Turkish evolving denials, Heath Lowery affair, Benard Lewis Affair, various Genocide resolution attempts - sucessful and otherwise, associated lobbying and so on and so forth - up to the current cancellation of the genocide conference in Istanbul and the current Turkish media campaign for denial. Even perhaps the change wars and such on Wikipedia may warrent a byline...--THOTH 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should also add to the above list the shameless Turkish attempts to wipe out Armenian cultural monuments and recognition of Armenian cultural contributions and presence in Turkey. There is a ctually a great deal of similar and related and other material that warrents presentation IMO. --THOTH 02:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It depends on you, what will be written, but as many extra things you add as more complex article will become and discussions will grow by progression, keep in mind that. Simply sometimes less is more: maybe without minor things we will avoid major discussions? Also, I suggest you to get some response from your opponents: it is necessary to aggre that _both_ sides will keep the same rules. --Gvorl 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Armenian Genocide Article Outline (partial and incomplete)

I wanted to get something out here before I went on vacation. I have a great deal more detail and such though not all tpewritten and not in this final format that I settled on and I feel that much more is required to really have a complete presentation. However I wanted to offer this up for something to chew on and I will be tweaking and adding to it while on my vacation and hopefully will be ready to post up something more complete in a few weeks. In the mean time think over this a bit - and I know it is really only complete through the Hamidiye massacres (which I see as being mentioned here but really needing to be a seperate section and the one that is there requires serious upgrading). I apologize for my lack of being able to format things in Wiki at this time. I really just haven't looked into how it is doen yet - and will likely require some assistance....

Outline for AG Wikipedia presentation

1) Introduction

- What was/is the Armenian Genocide o a brief overview of the essential facts concerning the elimination of the Armenian people and culture from Anatolia (1914-1922)

- Issues and controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide o What is “genocide” – origin and applicability of the term (links to other genocide articles in Wikipedia) o Official Turkish denial of the Genocide – origin and issues o Armenian attempts at Genocide recognition

2) Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide

- (Highlights of) Armenian history (in Anatolia) prior to arrival of the Ottomans (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia)

- Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

o Ottoman arrival and conquest in brief (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia) o Millyet system (Armenian Millyet and Armenians as loyal Millyet) § Establishment of Armenian Patriarch § Major centers of Armenian culture and population o Treatment of Armenians by Ottomans and Armenian migration § Armenian integration into Ottoman Society § Sultan, theocracy and law in the Ottoman Empire • Dhimmi laws • Limits of Ottoman control in the remote provinces and countryside § Sultanate attempts to weaken Armenian national base • Repressive laws and policies • Settlement of Kurds into Armenian lands • Armenian migration and forced conversion o Armenian Contributions to Ottoman Society (art, architecture, etc)

3) The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, attempts to forestall its decline and the rise of nationalism among Ottoman ethnic populations

- Ottoman Empire in decline – 17th – 19th centuries (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia) - Empire in contraction – lost wars and territories (detail and describe impacts – [perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia]) - Attempts to modernize and forestall decline o Tanzimat period and Muslim reactions to change of order - Nationalism and revolt of occupied Ottoman peoples o Wars of Greek and Balkan independence and Ottoman response (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia) § Balkan insurrection and massacres of 1876 § Muslim refugees from territories of Ottoman withdraw o Rise of Armenian discontent and Ottoman response § Armenian protestations for reform § Birth of Armenian political parties • Orientation and aims • Membership and representation • Attempts to rouse peasantry • Resort to Violence

- Foreign Intrigue surrounding disintegrating Ottoman Empire o Russian geo-strategic and ethno-religious interests o British attempts to counter Russian Interests o German interests in Ottoman Empire o Rising European colonial interests in Ottoman territories o Ottoman reforms imposed by European Powers

- Armenian Massacres of the Abdul Hamid Era (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia) o Instigation and rational § Threat perceived by Islam of Christian ascendancy § Reaction to European initiated reforms and Armenian attempts at intercession and implementation § Kurdish extortion and harassment of Armenian towns and villages § Abdul Hamid’s belief in maintaining the old order § Ottoman Bank incident o Chronology and Methodology of massacres § Establishment of Kurdish Hamidiye regiments § Sassoun uprising and subsequent Massacre (Oct/08-Sept/10 1894) § Constantinople Demonstration and Massacre (Oct 1 1895) § Turkish mob violence against Armenians § Locations of primary massacres, estimates of deaths and overall assessment § Zeitoun Rebellion of 1895-96 § Van Resistance of 1896 o European reaction to Massacres § Eyewitnesses and observers § European and Ottoman Inquiry • Anatolian Investigation Commission • British Vice Consul Hallward’s report § Impotency and humanitarian concern subjugated by commercial interests § Statements from foreign leaders § Actions to provide humanitarian relief

o Lessons learned and post massacre circumstances § Sultanate denial of complicity and attempts to shift blame § Armenian post massacre migration

4) The ascendancy and evolution of the CUP and the Rise of Turkish Nationalism

5) The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it

6) Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events

- Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide - Genocide Timeline

7) The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide

8) The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial

9) The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey

10) References and external links to related sites and information

- Websites presenting Armenian Genocide Information o Sites confirming, documenting or commemorating the Genocide o Sites presenting opposing or contrary views regarding the Genocide o Forums for presenting issues regarding and discussing the Genocide

- Relevant Media links

--THOTH 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to THOTH and those concerned

I think you have to be careful with the terminology you use. When you use "the genocide" in a sentence, you portray it as a undisputed fact, which it is not. For example:

Official Turkish denial of the Genocide
Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide
The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it
Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events
Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide - Genocide Timeline
The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide
The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial
The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey

With these titles you have already forfeited any chance of a neutral article, because you are forcing one point of view. A neutral article should follow wording like that of BBC articles seen here:

Turkey edges towards Armenia ties - You will note from this article the deaths are quoted as massacres and any mention of genocide is shown as "genocide"
Armenians remember mass killings - The title of this article refers to mass killings, not genocide. You will again note that the articles does not portray the genocide as undisputed fact.
Armenia remembers 1915 killings - Again look at the title, it refers to the events as '1915 killings', not genocide. The article also explains how Armenia wants Turkey to recognise genocide and Turkeys reason for not recognising it as such, it doesnt use inflammatory words such as 'denial'.

An encylopedia article should portray the events like in these BBC articles. When you say 'the genocide', you make it irrefutable to the point no other views are valid. This has to be addressed to give this article credibility. --E.A 16:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, with one exception, there are encyclopedias that do use the term genocide directly as if it was an established fact, one example is the very huge French language encyclopedia, Universalis. The article can use the term genocide when using the UN convention and other such instances by still being non-POV, but I believe that since there is a very vocal Turkish opposition there, it would be better to stick as you said to not cause a revert war or spammings of the talk page. I proposed to edit Thoth texts, so don't take his propositions as final. Fadix 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing thats because France recognises the deaths officially as genocide, amongst 14 other countries, but their view does not represent everyone. I think it is important to remember that this articles job isn't to prove or disprove genocide occuring, i believe many people are becoming passionately involved in this article to prove what they deem to be the truth (whether for or against genocide occuring). The only real fact of the argument is that there is conflict of opinion, the article should explain this conflict and why it exists. --E.A 22:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All encyclopedias I have read present it as fact, except for Britanica, so I don't think it is a question of countries recognising it as genocide. But regardless, this conversation is worthless, because I don't disagree with you here. But when we refer to sections title, they can in some cases be words that in the articles presenting them as fact would make them POV. A section called Armenian genocide could be permitted, the explaination on the other hand, should say something such: "What is often called" etc. This is only because those are word "conventions." Fadix 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completly disagree that there is any real controversy - in any real academic sense - concerning the use of the word Genocide to describe what occured to the Armenians during the period coinciding with WWI (and perhaps including events prior and after). After all the title of this article is the Armenian Genocide - and that is what it is and what we are talking about. In academic circles there is no real dispute of the use of this term and in fact the term itself was largely based on the Armenian experience and this has been well documented and discused here in these talk pages already. Likewise it is pretty much accepted that there is an ongoing campaign of Tukish denial of the truth of this matter and these facts require very explicit exposure and documentation IMO. Of course there is also a great deal of surrounding issues and events (including the "controversy" aspect) that need very clear and thorough explanation. I contend that acuratly presenting the facts and supporting such in all of these cases will in fact not be all so difficult whatsoever. And when presented it will be clear what is truth and what is distortion and IMO there will be little basis for much real dispute - not that I don't expect any from the less rational and more politically motivated commentators among us...--THOTH 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

To every one, for me as a oversea chinese,whether Turkish government denial on the genocide or not, to be honest, doesnt make weight that it never happened; likewise, if German government denial the Holocaust nor japanese government on Nanjing Massacre, implies they never happened? b.t.w, i am not in pos to comment armenian genocide, but ppl do normally believe in facts. [ pedestrian ,13-9-05]

Armenian casulties entry created

I have created Ottoman Armenian casualties, which still need a lot of work, but I thought it was mature enough to have its entry. Fadix 01:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT NOBODY HERE APPRECIATES THE FORMAL DEFINITION OF "GENOCIDE' IS IN LEGAL TERMS WHICH IS THE ACTUAL DEBATE. THE HISTORICAL EVENT SHOULD BE LEFT FOR SERIOUS HISTORIANS WHO'VE BEEN TRAINED TO SPOT BIAS AND ANALYSE DOCUMENTS TO DECIDE WHETHERE THE EVENTS WERE GENOCIDE AS ARMEINANS CLAIM OR WHETHERE THEY CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A GENOCIDE AS THE TURKS CLAIM. THE FACT THAT THE HITLER QUOTE IS ACTAULY A FAKE IS ACTUALLY KNOWN IF YOU INTERESTED PLEASE PICK UP THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IT IS SAID TO BE CITED FROM AND ACTUALLY READ IT...IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL...I DONT KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD HAVE MADE THIS UP MAYBE IT WAS A MISTAKE BUT IT SHOWS HOW PEOPLE ARE JUTS BRAINWASHED BY THEIR PARENTS AND COMMUNITY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT QUESTION. EITHERWAY HISORY MUST BE STUDIED IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND EVENTS. ITS NEVER BLACK AND WHITE AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN AN EXTREME POINT OF VIEW THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY WRONG! THESE THINGS ARE NOT A MATTER OF BELIEF ITS A MATTER OF FACTS PUT TOGETHER TO UNRAVEL THE TRUTH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE EVENTS WERE NOT A GENOCIDE, INFACT IT WAS NOTHIG TOO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAPPENED TO MANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS INCLUDING THE TURKS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE DURING THAT ERA...AND ITS IMPORTANT TO REMEBR THAT MANY PEOPLE STARVED TO DEATH AND HAD THEIR CHILDREN KILLED BY TERRORISTS FROM THE NEXT VILLAGE OF A DIFFERENT RELIGION,OR GROUP. WHEN GREEKS AND BULGARIANS GAINED THERI INDEPENDANCE THE TURKS SUFFERED JUST AS MUCH AS ARMENIANS BUT NO ONE CARES BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM.... LIKEWISE NOONE SEEMS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RESON FOR ARMENIAN DEATHS ARE ARMEINAN REVOLTS WHCIH WERE CONDUCTED BADLY IN AREAS WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE A STRATEGICALY HIGH ENOUGH POPULATION TO CARRY ON A REVOLT SUCCESFULL ENOUGH TO OBTAIN THE INDEPENDANCE THEY FOUGHT FOR AS THE OTHER CHRISTIONS IN THE BALKANS HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY. UNFORTUNALTLY CONFLICT COMES WITH CASULTIES... AND THIS IS WHY IT CANNOT BE COMPARED TO THE HOLOCAUST SUCH A CONFLICT DID NOT EXIST IN GERMANY. WHEN A CONFLICT IS INITIATED BY 2 ENTITIES DESIRING THE SAME THING THERE IS ALWAYS DESTRUCTION AND WHEN INITIATING A CONFLICT THESES THINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!

I'M SORRY BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT! - TA BU SHI DA YU 28 JUNE 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Yes, pressing Caps-Lock key once can help in this case :-) --Gvorl 28 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Actual suggestion seems important and very clear: one of the main subjects here is a definition of the genocide term. Legal definition is not necessary (because the Wikipedia is not legal site, also this case is really old, so can be classified retrospectivelly, etc.) but anyway, without the clear definition of this term here will be lots of problems. So, I suggest few things:

Define genocide term formally, but without relations to this concrete case. Is the definition in Genocide article sufficient and clear enough to be used? At first, the term which can be used whould be described very formally.
Define few formal (conclusive) criterias which would confirm to _both_ sides that some abstract genocide case can be classified as true genocide case. Those criterias should be abstracted from this (Armenian) case for the begining.
After this, both sides will have some common set of terms and it will be easer to do further discussions.

--Gvorl 28 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

- From what I've read of this article, it does seem to be genocide. However, the genocide article does note that "there is disagreement over whether the term genocide ought to be used for politically-motivated mass murders in general (compare "democide"), but in common use it simply refers to the deliberate mass murder of civilians." - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Suggestions from an uninvolved party

At the risk of throwing myself into a highly controversial article, I thought I'd give some feedback from an outsider's POV. I suggest the extensive use of footnotes: see Template:Ref and Template:Note (a good example of its use is Windows 2000 and W. Mark Felt) Several important facts need to be sourced:

The Armenian Genocide

On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals.
- Records are referred to here, and two conflicting figures are given. What are the sources for the several hundred arrests? What Turkish records are referred to that support the arrest of over 2,000 Armenian intellectuals?
It is believed that most of these were soon executed.
- Who believes this?
Most historians believe that the government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived.
- If many historians believe this, then we must provide their names.
Rather, records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in this activity themselves.
- This is a bold claim. Evidence (in the form of sources) must be provided to show where this information is coming from. Note that I am not denying it happened (my knowledge of this event is almost non-existent), I am merely asking for sources. Records are mentioned here, therefore there must be a source that can be cited.
Most Western sources maintain that a million or over Armenians lost their lives as a result.
- Which Western sources are being referred to here?
After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres have been reported taking place throughout the Ottoman Empire
- If they were widely reported, may I request that the source of these reports be given?
In Van, it is said that the governor Djevdet ordered irregulars to commit crimes and force the Armenians to rebel to justify the encircling of the town by the Ottoman army.
- Who said this? Again, a source should be cited.
It is believed that over a million were deported, though this figure has not been conclusively established.
- Who believes this? If the figure has not been conclusively established, why is this not speculation?
Some historians believe that the deportations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction).
- Which historians are being referred to here? We need a source here.

The camps

The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what are often called major "concentration camps" (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem).
- Though this seems to be an obvious fact, could I ask where these are recorded?
After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. The majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.
- Where did the reports come from? If there are reports then there must be a source of the report. The fact that the majority of the guards in the camps were Amerinians comes from somewhere: what is its source?
Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not.
- Which records are being sourced here?
Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en masse. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well.
- Which military court? Which case is being references here? What records from which military tribunal?
Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation.
- This states that they were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children: who made these allegations?
While the total number of victims that perished in all such camps is hard to establish, it is estimated by some sources at close to a million.
- Which sources suggest this?

The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)

...according to the military court and other records, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (without needing any orders to act).
- Source?
This selection process of criminals was, according to most Western researchers, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.
- Can we have the main Western researchers who believe this? Again, we need a source.
It must also be noted that, according to records, physicians participated in the process of selection; health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply the degree of savagery of killing that was required.
- Please note that "it must be noted" is what we call a peacock term. Suggest the removal of these words. Again however, no mention of which records are being sourced here. Please provide a source.
It is estimated that the members of the special organization have killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
- Who estimates this?

Military trials, Istanbul, 1919

The accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped.
- Is this speculation, or was it determined by the authorities? Does the sentence "The martial court established the will of the Ittheadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization." provide this source?
Though soon after the Armenian massacres, the world was well aware of the "extermination of the Armenians", which was openly discussed by Turkish government officials, and trials of Ottoman officials were held in regard to the events, after a period of quiet, a new policy of silencing and what is called as denial began.
- We have what looks like a quote here. What is it quoting? Also, what is the source of this? How do I know this is not just the POV of the author? Please note that I am not actually saying that it is, I am merely pointing out that this could be construed as POV pushing. Which leads me to...
Eventually, a policy that is considered by many historians as official state denial emerged.
- Which historians believe this? We must have sources.
Mention of Armenian Genocide almost anywhere in the world was met with rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors, while mention of it in Turkey itself led to jail terms or worse on many occasions — often prosecuted under a law against inciting ethnic hatred.
- Which court cases and which convictions? Where are the rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors documented?
Turkey began to spend large amounts of money on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations, and improve its image. It also began to spend large amounts of money on endowed chairs of Turkish or Ottoman history in different U.S. universities which had conditions that the professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey.
- I find this passage to be deliberate speculation. There is clearly a motive being provided for Turkey's money spending on U.S. universities. What evidence is there that large amounts of Turkish money was spent on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations and to improve Turkey's image? What evidence is there that "professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey"?
Some of their efforts to establish such chairs were met with student and public resistance and not all were eventually successful in being beforehand armenian counterpart establishments.
- Source and evidence for this please.
The campaign of what is called as denial was met with mixed success.
- Sorry, this is the POV of the author. This appears to me to be commentary and is unnecessary.
Some governments, notably Turkish allies the U.S. and Israel will not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, though some government officials have used it personally. Many newspapers for a long time would not use the word genocide without disclaimers such as "alleged".
- If this is an official policy of the U.S. and Turkey then a source should be easily found. If many newspapers would not use the word genocide without the word alleged, then those newspapers must be named. I notice that the NYTs has been named, however...
A number of those policies have now been reversed so that even casting doubt on the term is against editorial policy, such as the case is with the New York Times.
- Which policy? Source please.

Recent history — timeline

In the past, many prominent American politicians have made statements in support of formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.
- Only one politician is given: Ronald Reagan. The term used here is "many", in which case more than one politician must be provided. Also, what is meant by "prominent"? Prominent to whom?
The Armenian side speculates that fear of retribution from Turkey, a US ally and NATO partner, is behind the lack of formal recognition, whereas the Turkish side speculates that the only reason for the possibility of such a recognition would be the strength of Armenian lobby efforts within the US rather than the genuineness of the claims.
- Sources for both sides needs to be given. Can we back up these claims of speculation with evidence of the speculation of both sides?

Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A temporary answer

I don't have much time to answer more deeply for now, I tried answering in most cases without checking my notes because I was requested to do it a second time. I will do it as soon as possible. But I hope that before footnoting starts people that debate about how they want the article to be, of course, NPOV policy should be respected, the only thing I ask, is to respect what I quoted at my user pages, and do not divert out of the subject of the entry. Gvorl conflict resolution is as well a good start. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide

On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals.
- Records are referred to here, and two conflicting figures are given. What are the sources for the several hundred arrests? What Turkish records are referred to that support the arrest of over 2,000 Armenian intellectuals?

Any Armenian genocide works covers what happened in April 24. As for the over 2000 from Turkish records. The actual number is 2345, you can find those numbers by reading Turkish governments work, Kamuran Guruns “Armenian Files” is a start. This is only what happened in April 24, the next days, other Armenian intellectuals.(Writers, poets, journalists, professors, teachers etc.) All accused to be members of some revolutionary groups. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

It is believed that most of these were soon executed.
- Who believes this?

Again, what happened to Armenian intellectuals is sourced in any Armenian genocide books. Pick any of them. You can as well run a search regarding Armenian artists, intellectuals of those times, and you'll see that most date of death is 1915.

Most historians believe that the government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived.
- If many historians believe this, then we must provide their names.

One of them, a Turkish researcher is quoted there, it is one of the major three reasons, why some Turkish intellectuals believe it was a planned murder. I do plan to footnote as I did on the two articles I have created once there is a good final working version. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Rather, records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in this activity themselves.
- This is a bold claim. Evidence (in the form of sources) must be provided to show where this information is coming from. Note that I am not denying it happened (my knowledge of this event is almost non-existent), I am merely asking for sources. Records are mentioned here, therefore there must be a source that can be cited.

I agree here, I was not the one having added this entry, but there are reports, Ussher(an American physician of Van) do report this in his memoirs, or Vehib the then commander of the Ottoman Third army. But the way this passage is placed there is not entirely true, since most of those escorting Armenians were not the official Ottoman army, but the special organization and irregulars. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Most Western sources maintain that a million or over Armenians lost their lives as a result.
- Which Western sources are being referred to here?

See the Ottoman Armenian casualties entry I have created. Still incomplete, but...

After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres have been reported taking place throughout the Ottoman Empire
- If they were widely reported, may I request that the source of these reports be given?

They're in the hundreds, one of the links provided as sources and the bottom of the entry is from the German(Ottoman allies at that time) archives. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

In Van, it is said that the governor Djevdet ordered irregulars to commit crimes and force the Armenians to rebel to justify the encircling of the town by the Ottoman army.
- Who said this? Again, a source should be cited.

Nogales reports in his memoirs, how the governor has planned to kill any single Armenian man. German records(few included in the German archive site) show how in that region irregulars were disturbing peaces, in the records it is said that the authorities would correct the situation, but more irregulars were placed there, when at the end, Armenians have decided to resist. Ussher as well depict this situation pretty well. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

It is believed that over a million were deported, though this figure has not been conclusively established.
- Who believes this? If the figure has not been conclusively established, why is this not speculation?

My mistake, that was not what I wanted to mean, I wanted to say that the actual figure is still not well established. Alexander report that that Djemal(a minister in the Ottoman government), has estimated it to be 1.5 million, Talaat recently released notes suggest that for a dozens of cities, it was close to a million. Toynbee in his incomplete 1915 estimates, it was 1.2 million. Piratically all Austrian and German figures were of over a million. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Some historians believe that the deportations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction).
- Which historians are being referred to here? We need a source here.

“The Association of Genocide Scholars” the largest group of Holocaust and genocide historians in their joined and official recognition made this one of the points showing the intend of the Ittihadist party. The Permanent People Tribunal, place this as one of the most clear evidences. Those are just some. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The camps

The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what are often called major "concentration camps" (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem).
- Though this seems to be an obvious fact, could I ask where these are recorded?

Survivors testimonies, relief organizations, German reports etc. The volume on concentration camps of the last century "Le Siècle des camps" by Joël Kotek and Pierre Rigoulo as well record 25 as established, I presented 25-26, because one of the spots is unclear on wherever or not it was one or two.(with a map) But I can take off one if required. Those camps are widely present in most genocide maps. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. The majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.
- Where did the reports come from? If there are reports then there must be a source of the report. The fact that the majority of the guards in the camps were Amerinians comes from somewhere: what is its source?

Reports of deaths? German reports ... if you mean the reports of deaths that caused the closure of the camps. They are presented in the public Turkish Martial Court, and published in the Official Ottoman [Law] gazette, Takvim-i Vekayi. Here quoting from it one section regarding the corps: “it is noted that there was such a great number of corpses strewn around the roads that unless dealt with they would create dangerous consequences. And advice is given to alert the Ministry of Internal Affairs, so that drastic measures be taken to punish the officials who were acting so irresponsibly in this matter. It is also noted that it was essential to assign an appropriate number of gendarmes under the leadership of key officials, so that all the corpses within the border are buried. In a September 15, 1331 (1915) cipher-telegram, sent by Resid to the Interior Ministry, it is mentioned that the number of Armenians being deported from Diyarbakir had reached 120,000 -- which demonstrates the scope and meaning of the operation that had taken place (see series 12, document #1).” Oh and, the closure of those three camps is presented in the above mentioned book as well. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not.
- Which records are being sourced here?

The Jewish intellectual NILI group report burning sections, where people were concentrated and then, burned in mass. All of those will be included as footnotes, when the article becomes more complete. The Turkish military tribunal as well presented cases, where the Red Crescent camps were used to poison people. There are as well Dr. Said installations, two of his colleagues testified during the tribunal and submitted a report. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en masse. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well.

- Which military court? Which case is being references here? What records from which military tribunal?

The Turkish military Tribunal, in Istanbul in 1919. A Military tribunal that was conducted against those officials that were implicated in the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation.
- This states that they were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children: who made these allegations?

Third session of the Martial Court, on the date of April 1, 1919, published in the Takvim-i Vekayi, Dr. Ziya Fuad, health services inspector of Trabzon at the time of the massacres, and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affïdavits (authenticated oaths) which corroborate the charges of poisoning and drowning of children Nail, Ittihad deputy, and Dr. Saib, Health inspector, would provide the lists of the victims which would be then collected by Turkish women employees of these schools. On the mezzanine floor of one of those schools there was a room covered with tiles that was supposedly vapour bathroom (islim). The Turkish women would accompany the groups of young children to this part for a steam bath. And then... Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

While the total number of victims that perished in all such camps is hard to establish, it is estimated by some sources at close to a million.
- Which sources suggest this?

Read Ottoman Armenian casualties entry, I will add more later. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)

...according to the military court and other records, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (without needing any orders to act).
- Source?

Various sources, including the only German member of the special organization. Military tribunal indictment session, published in Takvim-i Vekayi April 27, 1919 N. 3540, differenciate the two branches of the special organization, from which, one was ordered by a special committee composing of members of the Ittihadist government which dissolved the government to get Ottoman entry in the war. This special committee received orders from the special committee that was leading it, which basically means a “government in a government.” Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

This selection process of criminals was, according to most Western researchers, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.
- Can we have the main Western researchers who believe this? Again, we need a source.

Professor Melson(the president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars) is an example, this reality of releasing from prison criminals is reported in the very large majority of books regarding the Armenian genocide, Melsons book: “From Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.” Isn't an exception here. You can read here the letter write by his association. Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Concerning_the_Armenian_Genocide_as_such_from_the_perspective_of_scholars_and_the_historical_record Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

It must also be noted that, according to records, physicians participated in the process of selection; health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply the degree of savagery of killing that was required.
- Please note that "it must be noted" is what we call a peacock term. Suggest the removal of these words. Again however, no mention of which records are being sourced here. Please provide a source.

I will rephrase it. As for references, it was recorded in the martial court. Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote in “Türkce” Istanbul, No. 45, December 28, 1918. An article saying how physicians were appointed “to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing you required?” Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

It is estimated that the members of the special organization have killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
- Who estimates this?

You can read the casualties entry of victims for now. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Military trials, Istanbul, 1919

The accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped.
- Is this speculation, or was it determined by the authorities? Does the sentence "The martial court established the will of the Ittheadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization." provide this source?

This is documented. And I can document this part more clearly than others for now, because I just have the references on my table, and won't need to consult my archives.

On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligence agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:

“Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.”

Source: British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.

“The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law.”

Source: Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16.

The Turkish press reported in December 1918 ("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided Ramiz’ homes, they found documents that were still intact and handed these documents to the Martial-court??? Following the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promised. Mr. Aziz, contrary to the promises he had made, never handed those documents to them.

It must be noted here that Djemal's bureau's Deputy Director stated that, before Djemal, flight from Istanbul:

“...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them. “

Source: Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128

The then minister of education Midhat Shukru…

“…made most of the CUP documents relative to Armenians disapper.”

(Source: FO 371/6500 p.480)

The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected of being the responsible.

“…disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons …saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders.”

(Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)

Other references to the destruction of those documents could be found in Aydemir’s work, where he writes:

“Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. “

Source: Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922. Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493

It is evident when referring to those pieces of references that the allies had no access to the documents contrary to what is claimed by denialists. A telegram ordering the destruction of telegrams, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.

“Burn originals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district.”

(Source: FO371/4174/15450)

On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commissioner regarding British intrusions by trying to examine documents, and finally answered that such an intrusion will be unsuccessful, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:

“…attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war. “

(source; FO371/4174/102551)

The British, facing the destruction of the documents, in a weekly summary of intelligence report, dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:

“…the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist. Talking of Rauf: he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa.” [source: FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592]

Karay, who in 1919 was the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, wrote that Mehmet Emin, his predecessor, had sent orders to all principal telegraph centres in the country, directing them to:

“…destroy all official papers, the originals and copies of all telegrams. “

(Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221)

Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering the destruction of telegrams in 3 June 1919:

“…all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office.” [source: "Takvimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919] Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Though soon after the Armenian massacres, the world was well aware of the "extermination of the Armenians", which was openly discussed by Turkish government officials, and trials of Ottoman officials were held in regard to the events, after a period of quiet, a new policy of silencing and what is called as denial began.
- We have what looks like a quote here. What is it quoting? Also, what is the source of this? How do I know this is not just the POV of the author? Please note that I am not actually saying that it is, I am merely pointing out that this could be construed as POV pushing. Which leads me to...

I don't think I am the author of this quote, I edited it to make it less POV, but don't remember having actually written it. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Eventually, a policy that is considered by many historians as official state denial emerged.
- Which historians believe this? We must have sources.

I think the International Association of Genocide Scholars has signed enough petitions and have among them enough historians to not need to name few of them. Don't you believe so? Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Mention of Armenian Genocide almost anywhere in the world was met with rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors, while mention of it in Turkey itself led to jail terms or worse on many occasions — often prosecuted under a law against inciting ethnic hatred.
- Which court cases and which convictions? Where are the rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors documented?

I was not the one adding this information, but this is a true information, I don't have much time right now to answer it, as I said, I just answered because you requested a second time in my talkpage, so I felt forced to answer something. Just to name the co-founder of the Turkish human right organization, Dr. Zarakollu that had to face justice, like his wife because of this. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Turkey began to spend large amounts of money on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations, and improve its image. It also began to spend large amounts of money on endowed chairs of Turkish or Ottoman history in different U.S. universities which had conditions that the professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey.
- I find this passage to be deliberate speculation. There is clearly a motive being provided for Turkey's money spending on U.S. universities. What evidence is there that large amounts of Turkish money was spent on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations and to improve Turkey's image? What evidence is there that "professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey"?

I was not the one adding this, and as well don't like the way it is presented, but the information is accurate, there has been an article in the Chronicle of higher education regarding this, another in the Holocaust and Genocide studies written by Dr. Lifton and two of his colleagues. I propose making this less POV and more as a position, will be documenting it when I have time. I do believe this controversy of Turkish government financing should get alone an entry since there is many things to say and makes a historic. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Some of their efforts to establish such chairs were met with student and public resistance and not all were eventually successful in being beforehand armenian counterpart establishments.
- Source and evidence for this please.

I didn't wrote that, and it should be rewritten. I will provide references when I can. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The campaign of what is called as denial was met with mixed success.
- Sorry, this is the POV of the author. This appears to me to be commentary and is unnecessary.

I wasn't the author, I edited and tried to make it less POV, but I agree that it still seems to be POV. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Some governments, notably Turkish allies the U.S. and Israel will not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, though some government officials have used it personally. Many newspapers for a long time would not use the word genocide without disclaimers such as "alleged".
- If this is an official policy of the U.S. and Turkey then a source should be easily found. If many newspapers would not use the word genocide without the word alleged, then those newspapers must be named. I notice that the NYTs has been named, however...

I was not the author of this either. This alone is an entire long issue which I believe should have its own entry. Right now I have no time, but I will be working for a new entry, you can take it out from the article until then, or until someone document it if you want. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

A number of those policies have now been reversed so that even casting doubt on the term is against editorial policy, such as the case is with the New York Times.
- Which policy? Source please.

The New York Times, after excessive research, months before, has officially recognized that the genocide is not an allegation, and that it can now use it in their articles without presenting it just as a claim. It as well just recently refused to publish a publicity from the Turkish government denying the theses. The Boston Globe did the same. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

In the past, many prominent American politicians have made statements in support of formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.
- Only one politician is given: Ronald Reagan. The term used here is "many", in which case more than one politician must be provided. Also, what is meant by "prominent"? Prominent to whom?
The Armenian side speculates that fear of retribution from Turkey, a US ally and NATO partner, is behind the lack of formal recognition, whereas the Turkish side speculates that the only reason for the possibility of such a recognition would be the strength of Armenian lobby efforts within the US rather than the genuineness of the claims.
- Sources for both sides needs to be given. Can we back up these claims of speculation with evidence of the speculation of both sides?

For me the time line is a mess, I really don't want to get involved in this time line stuff which I believe has no place in the central entry and should get its own. I'll leave this debate between other members, unless there is clear abuses. I want to only get involved in the history of the genocide, and very important post genocide events that should be included. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Motivation

I've just come upon this article for the first time, and especially given the complete lack of attention this event was given in American school, hearing of the Armenian Genocide for the first time is shocking and haunting to me.

I've noticed there's a lot of controversy as to whether this event even took place (to put it mildly), but I'm not going to get into all that. I simply noticed that while I was reading the article, there wasn't really any discussion of the motivation of the Ottoman government to commit such atrocities. When discussing the Holocaust, there are any number of theories as to why the Nazi government felt motivated to kill so many Jews (from the "Hitler believed evidence that Jews were conspiring to take over the government" theory to the "Hitler got dumped by a Jewish girl in elementary school" theory, and many, many more ideas).

But in this article, I didn't see a discussion of a fundamental reason why the Turks suddenly began slaughtering the Armenians en masse. It simply talks about how Ottoman law was changed to force all able-bodied males under 40 to serve in WW1, and then goes straight into talking about how Armenian recruits were later forced to work as laborers and many were executed.

Obviously, the question "why" can't even begin to justify such a momentous outrage, but... what event caused the Ottoman Empire to suddenly see the Armenians as, apparently, a scourge that must be destroyed? And why is Turkey's official position on the Armenian Genocide (denial of its existence) so fundamentally different from Germany's official position on the Holocaust (prosecution of those who do deny its existence)? ekedolphin July 6, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I agree - the current article is entirely deficient in terms of context and explanation. I can fully understand where someone who is not familiar with this history would be thoroughly confused and have no real understanding of the specific and surrounding events that consititute the Armenian Genocide from reading this article. It needs to be vastly improved. I have attempted to conceptualize a replacement article where causative events (and forces/ideologies etc) are clearly explained but there seems to be no interest in pursueing this line. The current article is pretty much beyond redemtion IMO. My proposed outline - (a draft of the background sections is provided above)- would clearly answer all of your questions. Their is incredible amounts of first hand documentation of these events as well as a large body of subsequant analysis. All of your questions are easily answered but unfortunatly few people (laymen) really know and understand the history. I also dispute the claim made by one commentator above that there is any real dispute or controversy sorrounding the factuality of the Armenian Genocide (as a Genocide and by serious historians) - the "dispute" is purely political and is entirely of Turkish making to deflect an accurate and truthful examination and presentation of history. Any denial of the Armenian Genocide is just this!--THOTH 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we've agreed on this over and over again but I think we're seeing a status quo effect. Nobody has the will or time to change the article into a more consistent one. Maybe everything should be removed first to make a clear start and we should put a banner on top to advertise that we need people in the know to participate. THOTH can provide an outline that I know he's been working on. --Muz 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Muz - I would be happy to - but your the very first person who has even commented on the outline at all (I posted a piece of it a month ago - above). I fundementally don't think it is all that difficult to lay our the facts and history in an accurate manner - the tough part is that everyone has far more preconception then actual knowledge and as we have discussed most are caught up in a particular viewpoint that interferes with taking a more comprehensive approach to the issue. As it stands the article is amaturish and unuseful/incomplete. I will complete my outline if there is any prospect on it actully being implemented. As you and I seem to agree on at least this much perhaps it is a start - I mean when have a Turk or an Armenian agreed an anything regarding this article before? - lol --THOTH 04:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

More sources

A long list of different sources and different estimates of the numbers killed can be found here [10]. More detail on Rummel's calculations and sources can be found here [11][12][13][14]. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

I am sorry but the websites that you showed , can not be evidence because they do not contain the real documents, otherwise in Turkish Universities historical researches , there are information about Armenians killed the Turks and the Kurds , but both of these are only allegations , because there is no evidence,there is no real documents but I can show you the Turkish Governmental website that shows the real document about the massacre activities of Armenians against the Kurds and Turks and also activities of the Ottoman Government Gendarmarie and Security organisations against the rebels and criminals in this region , in their archives, unfortunately it is not in English but it could be translated, the documents are in Ottoman Turkish , but if you don't trust to the Turkish Government you can see the original forms of the documents in here , a specialist can examine them, [15] , if there is a document that shows an order given by Talat Pasha or Enver Pasha, please show it in here please, otherwise the allegation about "the systematical annihilation of the Armenians by Ottoman Government" is unfounded. -- aozan

Rummel's sources are documented in detail. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

Note that Rummel also supplies figures for Greeks and other Christians killed, and yes, also figures for Turks killed by Armenians. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

No I couldn't see any original document in the details of the website that you said, please show original historical documents, there are only tables , passages , books , etc. I need real documents about this thing not tables or passages. -- aozan

This is not a library. The secondary sources can however be found in or ordered in a library. The primary sources can not be found on internet. That is true all historical souces from the time before the Internet. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

No, the primary sources can be shown on internet , the website that I showed above contains the primary sources, also they are open to the public, any scientist can examine them , both by coming to Turkey and by computer on internet , if you say the information about that thing is real, prove it by original historical documents please -- aozan

That is not primary sources, that is a copy that could have been edited or fabricated. Real historians certainly do not rely on such sources but on the originals. And the overwhelmingly majority of scholars accept the Armenian genocide based on real-world sources such as those refered to by Rummel. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

No they are not copies , they are images, on the other hand why don't you show me images of documents about your allegation , you can show images the real documents to me , if there is a document , can't you? Also the images in the website can be examined, why don't we have any document to examine about this allegations, if there is , please show, show any document about any order given by Ottoman Government, if there is , this means there is a real ethnic cleansing, otherwise we can not call it genocide -- aozan

You have a strange idea of the world if you think that only things that exist in digital form on the internet are true. There are many real world documents documenting the Armenian Genocide, and they are not less real even if they have not been scanned into a computer. Computer bits are easily fabrictaed, historians use real world documents. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

OK let's guess that the documents are not real that I showed before (inspite they are real as specialists came to Turkey and examined to search the Turkish Governmental Archives) and so show me your historical documents so a scientist can examine them -- aozan

Again, for example Rummel is not denying that there were also killings of Turks by Armenians, although on a smaller scale. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Belge[ler] records which have been used for the said 523,000 killed by Armenians are authored. And Aozan before posting new material here, I suggest you to read the forum archive, as I have clearly demonstrated the nature of this forgery by using the documents themselves and have shown how the figure "8" was used to add "sifers" (Ottoman zeros). They are the same sort of authored as were Shemshis publications. On the other hand, I do agree with you regarding secondary sources, Ultramarine figures were secondary and third(Is the Holocaust Unique uses for instance McCarthy statistics to draw the figure of losses" so it makes of it a third source) sources. But the entry I have created regarding Armenian casulties, besides McCarthy, the rest are all original first sources, from which, one is the original Ottoman statistics of Armenian casulties as well as Germanys secret reports of Armenian casulties during the war, and others etc. Ehmed Emin, in his book published in 1930, provideas figure of Muslim killed by Armenians to about 150 thousand, for the entire period. Emin was a known anti-Armenian who participated in the construction of anti-Armenian propaganda material to justify their evacuation. For this reason "he finds" Muslim killed during the 1917 period, by Armenians, fold lower than those of 1914-15, which of course is ridiculous, but when understanding that most of the propaganda materials were build early during the war, one can understand why so the differences between the two dates is that much disproportionate, when the ratio should be quite the opposit, which will bring his figure to drop to bellow 50,000. Oh and if you were to pay closer look at Rummels calculations, you'll see that he himself uses Emin. Fadix 8 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Sorry but I have limited time to read all of the information in here in this page , and other archived pages , or the article, can you say where these sources on the page or pages, or can you put here links of them, if you put here before as a link, what is their number? The page and the other pages are too long to read all,but about your original and primary documents that you meaned "primary" , I want to examine them or I can show them some specialists. -- aozan

And there is PDF files in the page if you look more detailed , please look to the PDF files also -- aozan

First of, the 523,000 figure and the Belge records has been discussed here on more than one occasion, and I don't think it is difficult for you to find out. You just have to research the archives (Ctrl and F) the term Belge, as well as in the Fadix analysis section. Second of, you can visit the entry I have created regarding Armenian casulties, and don't have more time for now. Fadix 03:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

About authenticity of the sources

Ok, we need to separate direct sources from indirect (analysis). On the one hand, let assume that nobody can show original paper documents to every (or any) Wikipedian, so any request for those papers should be ignored. On the other hand - Internet is not the place where all the documents (particularly historic) or scans of them can be found. So, we need to acknowledge that here we can assess direct sourcess only indirectly, by referencing to some authors. I would say that source can be treated as a direct one if it have some atributes like folloowing:

Have attributes showing that it is direct:
- Dated by period of the subject, or
- Is witnessing of some participant
Can be indirectly investigated by wikipedians:
- Referenced by indirect sources
- Assessed by historians
- Hadn't been widelly recognized (using other direct sources and expertises) as falsified

--Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

The so-called "armenian genocide" is nothing more than an attempt to mobilize minorities against Turks. It was not a politically taken decision of genocide. I recommend you to pay attention that armenia does not want to open its archives. Also the word "techir" choosen by Ottoman government comes from the word "hicr" originally.please check the meanings of these words..

The word "techir" (at the time, "tenkil") is a derivation of an arabic term, its true Ottoman meaning is to "kick out," force someone to exile(as forcing an intellectual to exile in another country), and it can even mean to annihilate an enemy through way of evacuation, check any Ottoman dictionary, or ask an Arab languist. The first one that manipulated the Ottoman term "tenkil" is professor Halacoglu there again. Never heard of "tenkil ve tehcir'den?" You may know Turkish a lot better than I, but I know Arabic, which even though I place "basic" in my user page, is between basic and intermedary, as well as Ottoman Turkish, which is not modern Turkish. My parents and grandparents still speak Ottoman Turkish and can write as well, when the Turkish population adhered to the modern Turkish language introduced by who you consider your father Ataturk. Besides, this adds to the fact that I do have Turkish friends whom live in Turkey and who master Turkish perfectly and would translate for me any modern complex texts. If you don't trust me, just give it a try. Fadix 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, since the fall of the Soviet Union, important and critical KGB files were made public, it either take an ignorant or self-fooling parots to claim that Armenian still restrict its archives. Oh and again, another thing pooped by the Turkish government. Fadix 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To anonymous 193.140.194.117: Your claim seems currently to be irrelevant because it is not substantiated by any sources. Please provide sources for any further discussion. Also, please do not delete other texts when entering comments. --Gvorl 07:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

This discussion page is already very big. I would like to suggest archiving older part (e.g., older than 2 months) of it. Also, it would be good to make some generalisation of the things which will go to archive. --Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

oh i bet you know little about Ottoman language because it seems so.Its just limited to a few words that you heard from your parents, may be only the word "hatret" because it seems they only teach you this.What you call about the deaths during the "techir" does not suit with the definition of genocide at first place.I repeat again that it was not a politically decided genocide attempt.Many Turks passed away as well.Have you ever heard about how many people were dead during the war in Dardanels in World War 1.Also, what will you say about the genocide commited by armenians during the Turkish independence war i,e,. when armenians invaded Turkish lands in 1920s or do you have courage to confess the genocide still going on in azerbaican??

No, it doesn't seem so, pay a visit to Lebanon or Syria and you'll witness yourself what language elderly people still speak, and even with their son and daughters. The Turkish those people knew/know is Ottoman Turkish, and there still are people of my generation that have learned from their parents and grandparents still speaking the language as a cipher code so that the younger ones don't understand. My knowledge doesn't limit to few words, and more so when Arabic words are concerned. The fact of the matter is that Tehcir, or more precisely Tenkil implyed a forced evacuation and not just simple immigration, and this is even recorded in widely available foreign ministry publications. Halacoglu claims that it was wrongly translated to deportation, when it actually meant immigration, this claim was again included in other sites as a result. This is completly wrong, and I suggested you to verify in an Ottoman dictionary yourself. It does not simply mean immigration, it means a forced transfer, evacuation, deportation, and even destruction(to do away).

Comming to what you call "Turkish genocide;" it takes a brain not functioning like it should, to think that in 1920, when over half of the Ottoman Armenian population already perished, it was possible for the Armenians to commit genocide. To the contrary, during the so-called Turkish war of independence, the Kemalist troops have reached Alexandripole, without any resistance, as if they were cutting into butter, the result was the entire destruction of Russian Armenia, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The Germans reported from past 1918, the condition of Russian Armenia as a result. The Ottoman managed to take away three pieces of lands they sliced from there, and they even planed to go through Alexandripole to Baku. Karabkir in his own memoirs during his plans to Nachikevan and Karabagh, wrote: "Armenia destroy for eternity." As for the Turkish casulties of war, more German than Jews died in World War II, doesn't in anyway excuse the Germans for what they did to the Jews.

Armenians invaded Turkish lands? The last time I have checked, it was the other way around, take a historic map, and compare the Armenia to the current republic of Armenia? Whom invaded whom? Where are the Armenians in Western Armenia? They vanished. As for Azerbaijan, don't drag me there for your own sake. Fadix 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

to be added when unprotected

(in the Section about Switzerland recognizing the holocaust)

... likewise, the president of the Turkish labour party, Dogu Perinçek is facing charges after he called the genocide an "imperialist lie" in a speech held at the celebrations of the 82nd anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne on 22 July, 2005.

Official recognition: Sources should be indicated

The item "European Parliament" should be linked to the "European Parliament resolution on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession" (see topic 39), which states:

"...the European Parliament...calls on Turkey to promote the process of reconciliation with the Armenian people by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians..."

It would be quite helpful to always link to sources.

--Marek Moehling 01:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Venezuela recognized the Armenian Genocide

VENEZUELA http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/separate.php?id=14236&task=world&cat_id=2

I don't doubt it, but a reliable source in this case would be the corresponding governmental body (here: the Venezuelan Parliaments' website). The Armenian Genocide is highly controversial, some contributors may not attribute much credibility to Pro-Armenian lobby group's websites, whether this attitude is justified or not. --Marek Moehling 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ?

As it is at August 2005, "Armenian Genocide" article is a pure propaganda, not an encyclopaedia item. Turks and Armenians have lived in peace for more then 900 years in Anatolia until 1915. Half of the Ottoman "sadrazam" ( primeminister ) were ethnic Armenians. Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ? Reading this article , one gets the impression that, one day, "Young Turks" decided to eliminate Armenian population in Ottoman Empire for the fun of it.

To understand what really happened , you should get a good look at "Tashnak" article. Founded at 1890, financed by Imperial Russia, England, French and also by U.S. , never mind also by rubbing other Armenians in Ottoman Empire, Tashnak started as a terrorist gang and organised a bloody revolt. At spring of 1915, nearly a quarter million Turkish civilians were killed during the Armenian uprising in East Anatolia. With all young man at fronts, Turks were cached defenceless against their neighbours, who were well trained and armed and has been preparing for their day since 25 years. Fighting in Galliipoli for the very life of the empire, it took Ottoman army months to gather troops to suppress the revolt. Suppressing a bloody revolt was also bloody. Ottoman troops killed every Armenian holding a gun.

After the revolt, Ottoman government decided to exile Armenians at east Anatolia to Lebanon. The exile was poorly planned and executed. My estimate is that nearly half a million Armenian civilians died during the exile because of neglect and mistreatment of Ottoman authorities. Main dead causes were epidemics, lack of supplies and attacks of Kurdish tribes on convoys, which had no proper military escort. It is a common fact that the exile turned to a big fiasco for Ottoman government and a big disaster for the exiled Armenians. Yet this is not a holocaust , but a tragedy of war.

The following are all lies: Armenians at west of empire and Armenian villages which declared their loyalty during the uprising (like Armenians in Malatya, in Amasya...) were not effected. This clearly shows that this is not an ethnic cleansing.

After 1915, the blood did not stop there. Armenian troops under Imperial Russian control invaded most of the eastern Turkey in 1917. Turkish civilians had to run or die. Then the cards turned again at 1918, when Soviets withdraw their support from Armenians. Then, when French troops invaded most of east Turkey at 1919, including Adana, Maras, Antep and Urfa, they armed Armenians as gendarme troops. Their misbehaviours against Turkish civilians ended up with this cities revolting against superior French forces and forcing them out of the region at 1920-1921, not without help of the revolution government in Ankara, formed by Mustafa Kemal. It is no small wonder that the Armenian population in the French occupation zone either has leaved with the French troops to Syria or forced to live. The same fate was waiting the Armenians who cooperated and joined the Greek invasion army in the Aegean region at 1919, when Turkish cavalier reached Smyrna at 1922.

On the other hand, I also personally know an Armenian who fighted AGAINST the Greek invasion in Turkish Liberation War ( Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) ) and carried the Liberation Medal with honour and pride until his dead at 1976 at age of 75. At every Victory Day ( 30 August ) , I visited him and kissed his hand.

The adaptation of the Latin alphabet to Turkish and forming of the Turkish grammar has been done by another Armenian, who was the General Secretary of Turkish Linguistic Institution until his dead at 1960's.

Every 3 th man in Anatolia has some Armenian genes beside Turkish ones after living together for 900 years. Indeed a big majority of Anatolian Armenians are not true Armenians but grand sons and daughters of Hittites , who adopted Armenian language and culture in the 2.th century, Armenia being the only Christian state, supporting Anatolian Christians.

I can trace 6 different ethnic origins in 4 generations in my family, like many other Turks.

Why and how should we make genocide ?

By --Isarioglu 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The above is comprised entirely of untrue and unsupported propoganda - If there is even a sliver of truth to anything you have said above its only by chance. I won't even waste my time with this - but one point I will make - all Armenain s of Amasya were deported and most killed and this has been extremely well documented - unlike your entirely made up baseless monologue above.--THOTH 03:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you forgot that there was a genocide in 1896 as well and the fact that the Armenians were viewed by the Turks as the Jews were by Nazi Germany. Thus leading to the first genocide and the revolt in 1915.

---Actually, both my parents were born in Amasya, and moved to Istanbul in 1962. My Armenian Grandfathers died in Amasya in 1977 and there were Armenian's living there up to the early to mid 1980's. With that being said, MANY armenians were both Killed and deported from Amasya during WWI including 7 out of 8 of my Great Grandparents. My Grandfather was forced at Knife point to change his name when he was 9 years old. All of this took place in Amasya. Though other places had it much worse, do not under estimate the carnage that took place. EVD -- 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead Armenians from the town Amasya

If you come to Istanbul, or travel to Amasya, or Malatya, (which you can do freely also as an Armenian Republic citizen ) you can still talk to the "dead" or "fictional" Armenians from this towns. I have talked with many people from both sides , who PERSONALLY lived this events. Unfornunatly, almost all are dead now due age.

If your hate does not blind you, you should listen and look at both sides. Armenian Diaspora and Armenians in Armenia grow up with a constant conditioning and hate against Turks. If you object this, have a good look at your primary school books.

We live together with people from many ethnic origins and we learn to understand and respect them, where as in modern Armenia, hate against Turks is state policy.

What Armenians did at Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh at 1992-1994 is another proof of how they rise their children since 3 generations...

For the last, Turkish historian Yektan Turkyilmaz is under arrest since 17 June 2005 in Erivan. He is a professor at Duke University US. He made a study in the Armenian State Archives in Mai and June 2005. As he was returning to US, he was arrested at the airport and accused with "smugling valuable books out of Armenia" , which he purchesed from a second hand shop in Erivan for a few US$. His work and all other documentation is taken from him and he is still in prison at 10 August 2005, without any trial.

So long for the open Armenian State Archives story. You can go and have look , but it is not so sure , if you can return... --Isarioglu 15:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)--

My primary school books? My primary schools books didn't even mentioned Armenia or Turkey, I was even not aware where Armenia or Turkey were on a map. I don't see how I was conditioned this way here in Quebec, I wasn't even studying in an Armenian school. Could we say the same about you and Turkish schools? State policy you say? Are you trying to kid me? Just read Turkish newspapers and how Armenians are viewed, only 20 years ago, Armenians were considered as lower than animals in those same newspapers. Perhaps should I quote one article that ask to not call Armenians dogs anymore because it will bring in the population hate against the animals? And what to say about "professors" such as Halacoglu and how they treat the Armenians in their pseudo-works? What I have done in Azerbaijan, Sir? What do you have to say about Azerbaijani autorities statments regarding not leaving a single Armenian in Azerbaijan, which was one of the things that sparked a conflict there? Oh yeh! I forgot, since Armenians are always those to be blamed, it must have been their faults.

What do you know about Yektan Turkyilmaz? Did you know that he recognizes the Armenian genocide? The guy told how he was free to get any documents he wanted in the archives, there aren't many researchers that will claim the samein Turkey. Oh and, the guy is a student of Duke, not a professor, he was undergoing researches for his PhD degree, and I, like many Armenians were sympathic to his work. He was not arrested because of restriction in the archives, but rather because of an Armenian law meant for the protection of national treasures, restricting people to get more than 6 old books out of the country without a permission. He took over 80 books. He probably ignored the law, like many do, and it is stupid to still keep him there, but this law is not selective, even if I strongly disagree with his detention. But talking of hypocrasy, shall I cite various names of people in Turkey jailed for similar offenses? Do you have anything to say about those? Fadix 16:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been too Amasya twice BTW - it isone of my favorite places in all of Anatolia - a wonderful town in an incredible setting. I stayed in an Armenian house there in fact (now owned by Turks)...this does not change the fact that the Armenians of Anasya were brutally killed - and for no reason - this is fact. They were "deported" into the widerness, slughtered en-route - and very few survived. I have read accounts of these incident (though am unsure if what I read is available online). Anyway I fail at all to see any poit you are trying to make. The Armenian Genocide is incredibly well documented. The lack of any Armenian uprising or revolt is also documented. The CUP central commitee decision to commit/undertake Genocide and the methodologies employed - the party aparatus emplaced in the provinces, the Special Organization drafted of trained killers and violent convicts, the disarming and masacre of Ottoman Armenian soldiers was all witnessed and documented. Do you deny any of this? If you do then you are pityfly unifomed - willfuly or otherwise - if you do acknowledge and understand - then why the lame excuses - why are you changing the subject and making up things that are untrue? Can you truly be so ignorant and stupid? --THOTH 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Thoth,

You seem to lose it. I am considered nor ignorant , neither stupid . But, you are getting easily rude. For the non existent Armenian revolt at 1915, I can tell you MANY things with great confidence, because one of the victims of the "fictional" revolt happened to be my grandfather, Recep Ayhan ( Muftuoglu) ( 1905 Van-1998 Mersin ). His family was a well established Turkish family from Van. Indeed, his father was "Muftu" of Van at 1915. When the Armenians revolted and it was obvious that the local military had no change to stop the slaughter ( Armenians slaughtering Turks and Kurds ) , the family and their peasants (around 100) , also taking their herd, headed for west trough the mountains. They had no time to stop and cook, because they were pursued. When they needed food, they just killed a cow and eaten the raw meal. Because of this memory, he became a vegetarian for the rest of his life. After one week, in the dark, they were ambushed by a Tashnak band. Most of the peasants, his mother and father , one brother and two sisters were killed in the brief first exchange. The Tashnak were using modern ( of the time) rifles, where as the convoy had only 6 one shot guns. My grandfather (10) and his two brothers (4, 8), each carried by a loyal servant found salvage in the darkness of the night, each heading at another direction. One week later, the servant who saved my grandfather meets a Turkish cavalry group from the cavalry army under General Kazim Karabekir (RIP), and was delivered first to Malatya, then in time to Istanbul. At 1925, he finalized his government financed education as a teacher. He found his remaining brothers at 1975 and learned that they adaptop the surname "Muftuoglu", meaning the son of the "muftu". I have heard this story for many times and in every detail he could recall.

I have heard confirming memories from many other old Turks, who personally witnessed and involved and also two old Armenians in Istanbul, who know details of the revolt.

By the way, Aram Quirik, the gentleman with the Turkish Libaration Madal, is from the town Amasya. Most of the Amasya Armenians moved to Istanbul after the republic on their own will. None were killed, but a few Tashnak militans, who were trying to make them revolt and turned to Ottoman authorities by loyal Armenians.

You may easly say that I am lying and producing fictional excuses for the genocide. You are free to do so. Even if the Tashnak leaders, who leaded the revolt would rise from their graves, find you in person and tell you their true story, you wouldn't belive them...

By the way, I had a live-in girl friend for 3 years , with an Armenian father and Turkish mother. My wife is still jealous of her and she is still a good friend.

Regards, --Isarioglu 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be too much asking, for you to post the dates, when those things happened? It happens that part of my family were from Van, from all of them, only 2 remained alive, they didn't had the chance to kill a cow to eat its meat, but rather the send, for a little boy not having still reached 10 year old, must have been not so easy. The same story from Marash from the other side of my family. Those from Van were there, when Jevet has ordered to eliminate any single Armenian male through Van(even Nogales the psychopath report this in his memories, when him and his cavalry fighting under the Ottoman flag were cannonading Armenian buildings.)

Dear Fedix,

My Grandfather told me that it was end of winter, early spring. Probably end of March or early April 1915. But I can not be sure, because the spring is late at Van region.

The first week of April, from over 20 people in one side of my family, only about 2 remained alive, and this in Van. Ussher, had a mission there, the same zone where a Red-Cross mission was attacked, because it was trying to rescue Armenians. I have gathered from the collections of said memoirs from Turks there, published by, I believe ATAA, an admission that before any upraising, in few days, Armenian shops were entirely destroyed. I gather from memoirs of my family, that irregulars under the order of Jevet, the governor, were rounding males from teenage year, to 65 years old, and killing them. Boys were hidden in baskets, and here is how the male survivor from the other side of my family made it through. This order, is even confirmed by Nogales, when he learns in April, that the upraising has started when the fool, Jevet, has ordered that every Armenian male in the city had to be killed. While Armenian shops were destroyed, and males butchered. Jevet was placed there by the Ittihadists to replace the other governor, because that governor was refusing to follow orders. Fadix 19:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you have heard those memories from many elderly Turks? You know what? Either some were hiding things, not being sincere, or lying. And before you claim that I am disrespecting your ancestors, start asking Armenians about their “stories.” Every Diasporan Armenian has his/her story, all similar one from the other. Must have been weird that from those that you have asked, it was always one sided. Have you gone to Nalyhan, have you asked the Turkish natives there why the soil is red? They believe the soil was colored reddish because the the Armenian blood that has covered the entire area after the Armenians were killed. Or what about those native Turks and Kurds along the Hazar lake? Have you interviewed them about the Armenians? Here, you can read what those you have interviewed haven't told you: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/armnm.htm

I can easly guess the rest of story and I also have heard partial confessions. After the Armenian revolt was suppressed and most of the able bodied Armenians died fighting, Turkish and Kurdish villains returned to their villages ( to run for their lives again one year later ) and started revenging on the Armenian villages. Once the army leaved a village, Armenians were killed by their neighbours, because their cousin killed someones cousin during the revolt. At that interval, Turks and Kurd had the upper hand. The governments official reason ( which you doubt ) for the exile is :

::1-To stop the fighting between the subjects of the empire. ::2-To secure the region from any new revolt, which is near the war zone, ::by moving Armenians to a neutral and secure region of the empire( at that time), Lebanon.

I will not fight you now on the real intend but on the results of the exile , we both agree, disagreeing with the numbers and intension.

We had the "Chain Revenge Crimes Law" effectiv until 1970's. If one man gets killed, a relative of his goes and kills the killer, if the killer is not available (prisoned), his brother or cousin and now it is the other families turn... It is called "Kan Davasi" or "Blood Case". It can sometimes go on for generations. To stop this hostality, the classical Ottoman solution to the problem was hanging the killers and exiling the whole family ( most of the time some 100), which started the fight to another region of the empire.

There is a weakness in your equation, at that time, most Armenian able bodied male, were conscripted in the Army, even those whom pied the military taxes were conscripted by force, to later be disarmed, sent in labor battalions or either being liquidated. So, those male could not have been killed in fightings. You can, to convince yourself, watch pictures taken by Germans, of Armenian convoys, you will see that there are no men aging from 14 to 65 years old, if there are some, they managed to hide. In fact, the official Tashnak press organs letter to the Ittihadist, indicate, how they were taken in surprise, this later is even in Uras collections. And later, many people were thrown to complete the Baghdad railroad. So, I can't conceive, how Armenians could have done what you report, when they were alienated, first from their intellectuals(whom were taken in shut), and their male population. There are even in Austrian and German records, crimes perpetrated soon in the war, in late 1914 against Armenians. I have already provided a reference here. Fadix 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And sorry, but as I confess, you should also confess that the Armenians also has the same notion of REVENGE as Turks and Kurds. At 1916-1919 , when Armenian troops with Rusian officers took control of the region, it happened all over again. At 1919-22 interval, when Turks won control again, all Armenian were forced to leave the region again. There were not many civilians left from any side in region at the end of this bloody war--Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC).--85.96.187.191 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Confessing what? I will only confess for things I did, and never for things I did not. The official Ottoman statistics were of 800,000 killed, during the Military tribunal, the figure of 1.2 million having perished was presented. On the other hand, Ahmed Emin, whom was known to be anti-Armenian, has presented in his work, the figures of Muslim having perished because of Armenians, and the total figure for the entire period, hardly exceeded 150,000. The guy was an Ittihadist, and later introduced in the Kemalist administration. He was as well a Malta prisoner, and was closely implicated in the destruction of telegraphic orders to liquidate Armenians. The guy to come up with his figures has used war time propaganda, which is exposed, for the simple fact that he use for the second period of 1916 and over a more accurate and certified number, that is lower than those he brings for 1914-15. Not only a little lower, while those of 1914-15, reach over 100,000, the second set is more like 30,000. The only reason for this, is that there are no set of figures available, other than those produced by the Ittihadist party press organ, which also suggest that the total number of Muslim killed by Armenians could hardly reach 50,000, when using the confirmed figures for the second period of the war, and extrapolating from it, those of 1914-15. Because most Muslim died, mid late 1916 to later, while most Armenians died from 1914 to beginning of 1916, which also mean, those two events were unrelated.

Now, when one considers, the extend and nature of the crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, any crimes that Armenians would have committed in WWI, would be considered as insignificant, and could never justify, the total destruction of the Armenian community from the hearthland of Anatolia, where they lived for 3 millennium. And just in a matter of 2 years, the community just vanished. It is rather ironic, that everywhere, where Turks claims Armenians have committed massacres, there is no traces of Armenian presence, as if, those that massacred were those that vanished. Fadix 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As for Amasya, sorry, you are completely wrong. Have you read, Ernst von Kwaiatkowski's(Austrian Consul-General) reports and dispatches regarding how Armenians in Amasya were brutally butchered like animals(and by pretext the Ittihadist press organ were dispatching advertisement of authored pictures of cache of arms to justify the decision)? Do you think that Armenians left Amasya to Istanbul from their own? Not only the Armenians there that managed to survive have lost their resources, but they had to face the attacks under the pretext of Ataturks “Amasya Declaration,” that made later those Armenians being dumped in the so-called Greeko-Armenian population exchange quit to Istanbul, that for most of those that survived and made it through, was even not the final destination. Fadix 23:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a Tashnak cell in Amasya, but they did not success to organise a revolt , because the local Armenians did not cooperate. In the end they were turned to Ottoman by Armenians and killed. I do not deny that most of the Turkish population was no more friendly with the Armenians in Anatolia. But nobady killed them or hurt them. Kemalist regime did not allow any such a crime after 1923, when law and order was restored under the new republic. At 1923- 1938, the economy in Anatolia was in bad shape, trying to recover from a deep trauma. After 1939 eartquake, thinks turned worse. It was the logical move to move for Istanbul for any craftsman.

Are you claiming that Ernst von Kwaiatkowski reports and survivors accounts of Amasya, were lies?

----Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)85.96.187.191 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)--Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Archives Can Not Be Used Freely

Trial Of Arrested Turkish Scholar Opens In Yerevan Baku Today Radio Free Europe 10/08/2005 10:40 [...] The opening session of the trial adjourned less than an hour after its beginning at the request of one of Turkyilmaz’s newly hired lawyers who said he needs more time to familiarize himself with the case. [...] the next hearing {is} for Friday. Among those attending the first hearing were local human rights activists and officials from the U.S. embassy in Armenia. [...] Individuals convicted of smuggling have rarely ended up in jail in Armenia. Hence, growing questions about reasons for the severity of the charges leveled against the Turkish national of Kurdish extraction. The chief prosecutor at the trial, Koryun Piloyan, refused to explain them on Tuesday.

“You don’t look at the issue correctly,” Piloyan told RFE/RL. “[Turkyilmaz’s] deed corresponds to that article of the Criminal Code.” [...] “Yektan is a good man, there is nothing bad I can say about him,” said Sevan Deirmenjian, an ethnic Armenian citizen of Turkey who is pursuing a doctoral degree at Yerevan State University and befriended Turkyilmaz after meeting the latter in Armenia.

Avetik Ishkhanian of the Armenian Helsinki Committee, a human rights group, was also at the trial and urged the authorities not to give the defendant a prison sentence.[...].

Ishkhanian was among those who were allowed to visit the arrested scholar at a maximum security prison in Yerevan. “He wasn’t particularly unhappy with conditions there,” he told RFE/RL. “His main grievance was his detention. I also remember him saying that he could imagine being arrested in Turkey but never thought that could happen in Armenia.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

So as you see, no body can use Armenian Governmental Archives freely as commonly known, but Turkish Governmental Archives are open to everyone, also there are people in Turkey, who accepts the Armenian genocide, but there is no arrestment to anybody, everybody can discuss the Armenian Genocide by opposite decisions. And there is no primary document about any order that was given to ethnically annihilate the Armenians by Ottoman Government. If there is show it.-- aozan

Turkyilmaz do recognize the Armenian genocide, he was arrested not for his works in the archives, according to his own words he had access to everything he asked, there are hardly any scholars that would claim having had access to any files they wanted in Turkish archives(and I can name many if you want). This thing makes me wonder if he wasn't arrested for some reason that has more to do with the fact that he tried to get over 80 books out of the country, and not few books, which led Armenian autorities to believe he was some Turkish agent, which of course is ridiculous. I am all for his liberation, from what I gathered from the guy, he seemed to be a serious and professional researcher whom had no ill intend, I may be wrong though. Oh and another thing, there are two trials pending these days in Turkey close to the issue, and those that are accused were accused for less than that, while there are similar laws in other countries as those existing in Armenia, for the protection of national heritage materials, and this including for Turkey, those two cases pending in Turkey are based on ridiculous laws. Fadix 17:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If he did not accept it beforehand , he would never have any access to Armenian archives. By the way, please name the 2 pending similar cases in Turkey, so that we Turks also know it please.

--Isarioglu 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

First of, we are skipping the purpouses of the talk page. Tell me how this discussion is relevant for the progress of the article.

As for his aknowledgement, you are assuming here. The guy was ethnicly Kurd, and very friendly with the Armenian community, and very critical of the official Turkish government history, and this before he has undergone to research in the Armenian archive. So claiming that he has done this to be accepted is pure speculation. As for the names, do you want that I refresh your memory about the cases of Hrant Dink, and post why he is accused so that one might compare the ridiculous nature of the accusation? What about the Kurdish lawyer accused? Oh and, I might ignore your answer, if it has nothing to do with the current article and a way to improve it. It is not that i don't like the discussion, but we should continue in our talk pages if it is uninvolved with the article. Fadix 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Talat papers document that 972,000 Armenians "disapear" from Ottoman Empire 1915-1916 - needs to be in article

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/09/europe/turkey.php

I'm sure more will be comming out on this shortly. In the meantime I suggest that this figure - and its source - be referenced in the article. It should be noted that the figure only refers to population decrease 1915-16 and that it is based on incomplete total population figures - though the total number killed/missing (mostly killed) is likely to be somewhat close to the actual (though likely to be somewhat low) as it is likely that the Special Organization kept some account of the properties taken and the demise of the owners though less likely (IMO) that they would have an accurate count of children.--THOTH (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This information needs to be added to the Mehmed Talat article as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was bloody, the Turkish argument goes, and those who died were victims of that chaos.

Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only the result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide Diaspora, and says that Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.

Why don't you mention the above passage that bardakci said in the same herald tribune article you gave? He explains why the number of armenians were so low in 1916/1917.

He also mentioned in the black book that not only armenians but 700.000 turks were relocated from regions close to the russian border. The black book does acknowledge though that the number of armenians that were relocated was around 900.000 and not as turkey previously had claimed 400.000. The black book says nothing about extermination, it talks about the tehcir (ottoman arabic for relocation), so why claim that 970.000 armenians were exterminated? Is it surprising that the number of armenians in the ottoman empire dropped drastically if you take into account that the ottoman empire was greatly diminished in 1917 and was even smaller than turkey is now? The regions where the armenians traditionally lived in the ottoman empire were conquered by the russians and armenians and part of these regions were only reconquered later. If the ottoman empire in 1916/1917 did not include the regions the armenians traditionally lived in and the armenians had been relocated to regions which were conquered by the english and french, is it very surprising then that the numbers of armenians were so low in the ottoman empire? Could you say that if mexico and the usa were at war and mexico conquered the states of new mexico and texas and as a consequence the number of hispanics dropped drastically in the usa, the usa must have committed genocide Diaspora and the numerical difference of hispanics between pre-war usa and post-war usa must be the amount that was killed? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is highly biased using his words partially. I have met Murat Bardakçı and know what more he said. He says the figure is too high for those that deny it completely and too low for the Armenian side. It helps those that argue that it was not a Genocide Diaspora. He also pointed out that after the deportation suddenly there are more than 200 thousand Armenians showing up each in Syria and Lebanon as the Tehcir was intended to. Those people have settled in these regions and continued their daily lives. What his documents certainly helps is to annihilate the Armenian argument that there were 2.1 million Armenians living in Ottoman Empire and 1.5 million of them were killed. These documents helps the Turkish case as they provide real statistics with real documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian, Hellenic, and Mount Lebanon genocides Diaspora...

I think we should link them to this article, seeing as how they are part of the same historical framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.121.233 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They already are, in the introduction section. Meowy 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Date agreement needed in section on "Reform Implementation"

In the section below, "Reform Implementation, 1860s-1880s", the 2nd paragraph states that the Treaty of Paris (1856) was signed after violent suppression of Christians in 1875. Something is incorrect or needs more explanation: the treaty could not be dated 21 years prior to these suppressive acts.

Reform implementation, 1860s–1880s Main article: Armenian Question

In the mid-1860s to early 1870s, Armenians began to ask for better treatment from the Ottoman government. After amassing the signatures of peasants from eastern Anatolia, the Armenian Communal Council had petitioned to the Ottoman government to redress the issues that the peasants complained about: "the looting and murder in Armenian towns by [Muslim] Kurds and Circassians, improprieties during tax collection, criminal behavior by government officials and the refusal to accept Christians as witnesses in trial."[16] The Ottoman government considered these grievances and promised to punish those responsible.[17]

Following the violent suppression of Christians in the uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Serbia in 1875, the Great Powers invoked the 1856 Treaty of Paris by claiming that it gave them the right to intervene and protect the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities.

Alliwalk (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) alliwalk May 6, 20

Search function for archives

I´ve noted that other articles have a searchfunction for archived discussions. I´d like to have one here, but don´t know how to add it.

--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Much of the archived discussion here is completely pointless and repetitive - so to have some way of searching for the useful content would be useful. I wish other editors would do some regular pruning of the off-topic material this talk page attracts. Meowy 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a search box, and also set up an indexing function.—Chowbok ☠ 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Nazim quotes

A recent article in Armenian Weekly (February 4, 2010) by Eren Keskin, titled "From April 24, 1915 To January 19, 2007", contains two quotes by Ittihaddist politician Dr Mehmed Nazim made "in a secret meeting of the CUP in the beginning of 1915" according to Eeskin. The quotes are:
"...Armenians are like a deadly wound. This wound is first thought to be harmless. But if it is not treated by a doctor in time, it definitely kills. We must act immediately. If we act as in 1909, it will do more harm than good. It will awaken the other groups we have decided to eliminate, the Arabs and the Kurds, and the danger will become threefold..."
"...If this cleaning out is not general and final, it will hurt more than heal. We must wipe out the Armenian nation from our lands. Not even a single person must survive and the Armenian name must be forgotten... This time the operation will be a total wiping out. And provided that not even a single Armenian survives, total elimination is a must."
Keskin give as her source Recep Marasli, Ermeni Ulusal Demokratik Hareketi ve 1915 Soykirimi (2008). These quotes seem to me to be important enough to be included into the article, but page numbers are needed for the source, as well as some information about the background to the quotes, where the source got the quotes from, etc. Meowy 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ararat, The Film

I saw on the "Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor" shows that under "Later Assessments" that "The Armenian Genocide is the subject of a 2002 film, Ararat, by Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan." is proposed. I would like to see this line above the Contents box, because it is the highest profile of art that help shed some light on this topic for the masses. For most of us we don't have the time to read deeply on all that we want to learn :-/ but by putting this reference high up in the article it can be a reference point for those of use who read in summary, but tend to watch TV & Film more often then read books etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSpittel (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

leaving history to historians

Justin A. McCarthy is an American demographer, professor of history at the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky. McCarthy does not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but claims that millions of Muslims [1] in the region were also massacred in this period and many in the hands Armenian insurgents and milita.[2] He has contended that all of those deaths during World War One were the product of intercommunal warfare between Muslims and Armenians, famine and disease, and did not involve an intent or a policy to commit genocide by the Ottoman Empire. McCarthy has been active in disseminating the results of his work and analysis, that Ottomans never had a policy of genocide, through books, articles, conferences, and interviews.[3] This has made him a target of much criticism from mainly strong Armenian diaspora organizations and historians. He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the Armenian Genocide in 2006.[4]

^ McCarthy, Justin Let the Historians Decide, Ermeni Arastirmalari, volume 1, Ankara 2001. ^ McCarthy, Justin Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Darwin Press, Incorporated, 1996, ISBN 0-87850-094-4 ^ Jaschik, Scott (October 22 2007). "Genocide Deniers". http://hnn.us/articles/43861.html. ^ "A PBS Documentary Makes Its Case for the Armenian Genocide, With or Without a Debate". New York Times. 2006-04-17. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/arts/television/17stan.html?ex=1302926400&en=42703f4960edef66&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Retrieved 2006-09-02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.157.11 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

H. Morgenthau and Admiral Mark L. Bristol

Is there a reason why Mark L. Bristol is not mentioned in this article? He was the successor of Henry Morgenthau and discredited Morgenthaus remarks about the incidents. Here is the link to one of his letters to urge the circulation of false Armenian reports: [16] It's weird to see how Henry Morgenthau is mentioned a lot in this article but Mark L. Bristol is not at all. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bristol didn't really "discredit" anything. Although he held anti-Armenian views and pushed for a very pro-Turkish economic policy for the United States in the years immediately following the end of World War I and the creation of modern Turkey, he nevertheless is now considered an important figure for the study of US policy regarding the Armenian Genocide after it took place. According to one recent comment by historian Levon Marashlian, Bristol "fully accepted the fact that Turks massacred Armenians on a large scale." [17]. That seems quite in keeping with what Morgenthau had been saying for years. Thanks for bringing it up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you care to read the link I provided you'd see that you're wrong, though I'm sorry that the letter is very wrong. Bristol hated both Turks and Armenians. He was both anti-Armenian and anti-Turk. You can see this clearly in his letter. Also pardon me for doubting what you say completely because you just gave quote from a conference about 30 years ago a recent comment. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the response of James L. Barton to Admiral's letter. You can simply skim through the letters and see that neither has any love towards Armenians or Turks. [18] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your links are just crude, empty propaganda, sponsored by the Republic of Turkey's government - if you haven't noticed but there are currently over 200 citations on this article and the mere notion that Bristol challenged Morgenthau's account (which he seemingly doesn't) does not in any way disprove the fact that a genocide took place. Bristol was very prejudiced, correct, but in that link I provided, he does admit that his feelings lie more with the Turks than anyone else. We're not going to suddenly change the name of the article to "Soezde Ermeni Soyqirimi" all because of this revelation, so please find something more practical to do.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that I want the title changed? What's up with this Armenians habit of creating arguments that does not exist? The links I gave has the unedited versions of two letters that very clearly shows that Armenians have been creating false reports. You say that Bristol is biased because he chose Turks but disregard the fact that Morgenthau was trying to pull USA into the war and used Armenians to do so. Simply admit that you don't want any proof that contradicts the genocide claims. Some of those 200 citations that you say this article has uses documents that are proven to be forgery. What do you say to that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Study of the Armenian Genocide

This section claims that the number claimed by the Turkish argument is that only 100 thousand Armenians died as a part of this issue. This is wrong. The official position of Turkey can be seen here: [19] The consensus is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died.

This section hardly has any information on the study of the "Armenian Genocide" I would edit it myself but I'd just be labeled as a Turkish nationalist dog. So I will give some time for people to discuss it here and then I will edit it. If anyone objects the edit please first discuss here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

100,000; 300,000; 600,000...the numbers have always fluctuated up or down over the decades (they still do). What is important here is not that Turkey rejects that those killings were part of an organized attempt to systematically annihilate the Armenians. We can revise that figure for the sake of clarifying Turkey's current position, of course. That section, however, requires extensive editing and for anyone who has the time, I would advise they check out the essays from this book, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide [20], to stand on a more firmer footing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is not about how many of them died but what the Turks claim. The claim is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died. The position of Turkey didn't really ever change. The link I provided shows the claim by Turkish arguments. The number of dead Armenians fluctuated from 800 thousand to 2.5 million by genocide claimers. Turkey's position have never changed which is reflected in this section inaccurately. There is no reason to check a potentially biased Armenians source to find out what number the Turkish argument claims. I repeat right now I'm not arguing about how many died or not but the claim by Turkish argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The "genocide claimers"? Please avoid using that language. Well, of course the figures fluctuated on the Armenian side - how on earth do you calculate the deaths of so many people when the post-war conditions did not allow for a proper count to be taken? And yes, the Turkish government has revised its figures numerous times - they go up, they go down, they stay the same, but it's largely unimportant here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am tolerating you calling them genocide so you can tolerate my cynicism. Armenian numbers fluctuating is not an argument here. I'm not discussing that. What I'm discussing is the Turkish argument. Yes you will find some nut job Turkish ignorant politicians who behaves like Armenians never existed but they're usually some low level politician begging for media attention to gather votes which they usually fail miserably. I have never seen any Turkish scholar or government official stance that the number of dead Armenian were no less than 500 thousand or more than 700 thousand. The 100 thousand number that the this section suggests is certainly a non existing argument. Every detail of this article matters. Otherwise you can just delete everything and write "Turks butchered Armenians". So, I urge anyone to find a source for the 100 thousand argument from reliable sources because I personally could not or I will edit this section in time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I will report you if you continue to alter my edit. You allegation that they're cosmetic is completely unreal. You're trying to portray Turks as worst as possible by twisting reality. Please refrain from such foul acts in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning ASALA

The terrorist organization and it's assassinations should be mentioned in the Controversies section. It is a part of the Armenian issue. The article remains one-sided as it includes any kind of negative event or quote from Turkey while ignores anything at all from the Armenian side. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ASALA can be mentioned as one of the Armenian Diaspora's reactions to Turkey's strenuous denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it is inserted, it must be placed in full context on why Armenians resorted to violent measures (they did so because they saw demonstrations and peaceful measures were largely being ignored by the rest of the world). This article is not written to cater to any side DarkLordSeth. The Holocaust article is not going to give equal airtime to both the Nazis and its victims. Although you're not trying that hard, it's obvious you're trying to obfuscate the facts - a genocide took place, and you must accept that whether your choose to or not. This is getting repetitive - the sources are overwhelmingly clear so please give this up charade of trying to "balance" out the article by giving equal weight to the voice of perpetrator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful there. You're indirectly implying that terrorist activities can be justified. I'm sure if Al Queda or Hamas was the terrorist organization here you would never approach them in such a manner. ASALA is a tool that Armenians used to get Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian Genocide through fear. It has everything to do with this article. I could only obfuscate facts if I saw any. This is an article that uses so called evidences that are proven to be forgeries and yet present it's contents as facts, i.e. The Memoirs of Naim Bey a.k.a. Talat Pasha Telegrams. I'm sorry but I can't take this claim that these evidences are overwhelming when so many of them are so far away from being facts. I give you some credit though as believing in this lie for so long that your only option is to simply ignore any kind of acts that would undermine such an important issue for you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to interpret nor comment on my beliefs and opinions in such a manner - comment on the content of this article or don't do it at all. With that said, I'm no longer going to waste my time with your rabble-rousing. The Armenian Genocide is a fact and any attempts to insert doubt in this article by using weasel wording (like that the tired phrase "so-called"), inserting dubious government propaganda, and works written by fringe scholars, have absolutely no place here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for you and that's exactly what I said. Please don't be double-faced next time. Rules apply to both of us. I'm not saying we should use the phrase "so-called" in the article and I've never used it as an edit in this article and never would. It clearly suggests a disbelief in the matter. I have always heard this "dubious government propaganda and works written by fringe scholars" but yet to see any evidence showing it so. It's simply a pathetic argument. You have already labeled everything I present as government propaganda or fringe scholars yet I haven't presented any source that is tied to the Turkish government or any kind of scholar. I just put a link of a letter from American authorities and you labeled it as government propaganda and fringe scholar. This is why it's really pathetic. Your argument is not even consistent with your accusations. On the other hand you have absolutely no trouble with alleged evidences that are proven to be forgery existing in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical Neutrality

A reasonable question which is never addressed iin the article s why, if the Turks really intended to commit genocide against the Armenian minority, they decided not to kill them on the spot but instead chose to expend vast resources they could little afford during wartime conditions and ship them 800 miles away to Syria, then kill them. Since this seems to support the Turkish claim that the Armenian deaths were the result of the displacement process rather than systemic genocide, the article should deal with it.

Also, all the evidence of Christian Armenian collusion with Christian Russians against Muslim Turks is presented as a mere assertion -- "X claimed/ X said" -- by Turkish officials, even though historians do not dispute that this traitorous action was real. Armenian action blocking Turkish supply routes through narrow mountain passes caused numerous deaths in the Turkish Army, and the displacement of a hostile, Christian, Armenian minority away from the battle front could be seen as a reasonable response to this hostile action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire conscripted in the Ottoman Army (and swiftly disarmed, forced into labor battalions, and soon thereafter killed). It shouldn't be a surprise that Armenians living in the Russian Empire similarly conscripted in the Russian Army. So you shouldn't be confusing the two sides. With regards to your "reasonable" question, it seems that it's cheaper to have 1.5 million people walk in circles in mountains and deserts than to expend 1.5 million bullets and then also have to deal with the corpses. Further, the presence of American and other foreign missionaries in the provinces required that the government send the population out to be killed on grounds of "deportation." This way, the government can claim that their citizens died "unfortunate" deaths that they could not have prevented due to lack of resources. What were they doing in the desert heat anyway! It's a clear plan of creating a situation that creates forced death on the population. Serouj (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any way you look at it, killing people with bullets is infinitely less expensive than the massive logistical effort involved in transporting an entire population 800 miles to the West -- and this at a time when wartime conditions demanded extremely conservative use of resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're very inaccurate. There are extensive reports from French, German and Ottoman reports that the destination of the Armenians were on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates. The reports talk about Armenians settling in and starting to conduct their business. The population rise in Syria and Iraq amounting to 500 thousand Armenians can also be found in Ottoman, French and British statistics. There are also records of numerous orders from Ottoman high command to help Armenians on their journey as much as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You don't need to tell me. My grandfather's father and older brother were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and never returned. My grandfather, his mother, and his younger sister were all condemned to death because they were Armenian Apostolics. The Armenian Protestants were to be spared because of the presence of local American Protestant missionaries. Due to the quick-thinking of my grandfather's mother, as the Turkish gendarme had his back turned, she quicky slid into the crowd of the Armenian Protestants. So please spare what you "read" in statistics. Armenians "settling in and conducting business"? By the time my grandfather and younger sister reached Syria, they were ORPHANS! And they weren't the only ones -- there were thousands like them, with neither mother nor father. Is that what you call "settling in and conducting their business?" Serouj (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this entire section is off-topic and should be removed. Talk pages are not intended to be message boards for personal opinions and essay writing. Though sometimes a minor article with a little-used talk page can benefit from such stuff, this is not such a case. This article's completely unusable 19-page talk archive might have been a usable 5-page one if all the off-topic rubbish had been cut from it! I wish those that has initially responded to this "leave it to the historians" posting had instead erased it on sight. Meowy 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this crusade of censoring this article according to your beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Commemorations

Does anyone know more about the commemorations in Turkey today where thousands of scholars, intellectuals, human rights activits and well-known Turkish artists commemorated these events and apologised for it? I think we should add that to the article. Bare in mind though that we should keep neutrality. Armenians weren't completely innocent either. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a little insight: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/24/genocide/ and http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/23/ankara/. Should be more on the net in the next few days.

May be we should add this but keep in mind that The Republic of Turkey don't recognize "The Armenian Genocide". For Turkey it is still a claim and they are right because there is no better evidence-if you can call it an evidence-than Armenian scholarship. Turkey stil wants a history comission which will look at the Ottoman and Armenian archives so that the truth about "Armenian Genocide" can be found. Though Turkey accepts that massacres against Armenians were done but also massacres against Turks were done too. And none of them were govermentally supported. Besides those activists and intellectuals are condemned by the Turkish nation because they generally do that just to be famous. However, if you would like I can provide you a list of those intellectuals who are apoligizing for the "Armenian Genocide", there is a site for that in Turkey. Altough I don't understand why they are apoligizing for a non-existing thing.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Jorgenpfhartogs, you should bare in mind, that before accusing one wholenation in something, you have to think very carefully, as this is incorrect terminology to use and may be count to be "racistic": "Armenians weren't completely innocent...".

2) When having such things said you should not only use correct wording, but also express exactly what you mean and what connection there is with the topic opened by you. Otherwise it may be (see point 1).

Regards, Aregakn (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. let me rephraze that. I think it's good that some Turks finally take responsibilty for what happened. I fully un derstand that not every Turk or every Armenian are or were responsible for events in the past. There's enough evidence to proof something did happen though any proof this was organised by the Turkish government is very unclear since of course the Turkish government would never release such documents. What I meant with the Armenians weren't completely innocent is the reason for why Turks and Armenians hated each other so much and that is high tensions between the two nations. Armenians of course did kill Turks too though not on the same scale. That's why this was called a war. British and German soldiers at the same time killed each other en masse too. It's very sad these things happened but my believe is that a genocide did happen.

It's not a racist thing and the sooner both nations accept the events the sooner they can think about forgiving each other. After all, Turks and Armenians have also lived peacefully next to each other for a long time and many Armenians still live in Turkey. My question was however regarding the recent commemorations and increasing calls by Turkish people to acknowledge the genocide. I still believe we should document that change in attitude in Turkey since it is significant to the articleas a whole. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So I hope you can clearly state the sources or maybe clarify what you mean "armenians killed turks"! If you mean the self-defense groups is one thing, but if you mean some kind of organisation with an aim to kill turks you have to cite.

In addition, it is clear you have no idea of who participated in the WWI. FYI, there was no Armenia as a state then and Armenia could not be a state involved in a war. Comparing Germany and Britain armies with the Ottoman army and the civilian population of it's own state sounds ridiculous.

You are also bringing up an issue of hatred of 2 nations towards each other for whatever period based on.....? Any reading made on that? Or maybe there are citations you can bring?

You also fail to have known or at least read about (at least) the Turkish Courts-Martial. Turkey itself had condemned the involvement of it's government in the war AND the Armenian Massacres.

FYI, some citation that concerns our topic from a very long verdict (separate paragraphs from it):

There was even more to it. They created an even greater atmosphere of harassment of the non-Islamic elements of the land, the Armenians in particular, who had hoped, from our precious Constitution, for justice and peace. These people now understood that they had been victimised by hypocrisy, and they assumed the posture of awaiting that opportune moment when they would be able to realize their former national aspirations. And the cause of all this were the Ittihadists themselves. They even raised national and racial issues among the Moslems of the land, they promoted divisiveness and conflict and jeopardized Ottoman unity. All this has been established by the intensive studies and examinations done of the matter as they appear in the charge of the Attorney General.

The authors of the above-mentioned crimes, representing the moral person of the Ittihad and Terakki Party, are the members of its General Assembly, the fugitives — Prime Minister Talaat Pasha and Minister of War Enver Effendi, now expelled from his military career; Djemal Effendi, Minister of the Navy, likewise expelled from the service; Dr. Nazim, Minister of Education — these were the principal criminals(fayili asli)and their guilt has been determined by a unanimous vote.

As to the sentences: punishment is to be meted to the abovementioned persons: Talaat, Enver, Djemal and Dr. Nazim, whose crimes were the greatest according to the first paragraph of the 45th Article of the Imperial Municipal Punitive Lawbook; also to be punished are Djavid, Mustafa Sheref and Musa Kiazim, by virtue of the second paragraph of the same Article and in accordance with the last paragraph of the 55th Article of the same Lawbook.

Published in the Official Gazette of Turkey (Takvimi Vekayi),no. 3604 (supplement), July 22, 1919.

Hope some things became at least more clear now! Aregakn (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Turks butchered Armenians! (If you can't understand it, it was sarcasm.) Now, if you will show a gazette of Ottoman Empire-not Turkey- you should also show that they were independent. Many gazettes in 1919 were in British control. Accept it it was a war and we had a fight. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide." [[21]]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For a sarcastic guy like you, you should better look for the ruling of the Courts-Martial first. And once again, you fail to understand (I think any) Wiki rules. Do not interpret the sources! one way or another, it's a POV you claim now, a ridiculous one, I'd say. Aregakn (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sarcastic indeed, Mr.Patriocide. You said "Do not interpret the sources!" If we are not interpreting the sources of something, are we even human? Or do you want people to just believe in "Turks butchered Armenians" so that the Armenian people can have some attention? You are accusing me and TheDark with propaganda and who are opposing with so-said Armenian Genocide turns out to be racist so that you can prove the claim of Armenian Genocide without any good support. Don't you think that you are the one making this propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel's position

Should the article have a more thorough discussion of the role of Israel in preventing the U.S. from officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide for so many years. I read an article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=170394 that points out precisely this, so don't brand me an anti-Semite. Ndriley97 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't brand you anti-Semite. Israel have a tradition of elevating the Jewish Genocide during the WWII to be something extraordinary, a position that is not shared by all historicians. I personally am undecided for lack of knowledge of detail. Since the political reactions of the topic is dealt with in the section Contemporaneous reports and reactions with painstaking detail, the source belongs to there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading it: the source is too weak! It alleges lefthandedly in a side comment. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

history of the term genocide

Lemkin did not coin the term genocide to refer to this incident. it was first used in 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation' to describe the holocaust. He used the terms barbarity and vandalism to describe the Armenian genocide and those terms did not morph into the term genocide until after his family was killed under Nazi occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly lack knowledge then. Read other references discussions and you shall find what exactly he said. Aregakn (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Armenian genocide/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

another resource site link for the Armenian Genocide should be added. its 100% related and here are the details:

Site Name: GenoPosts.com URL: http://www.genoposts.com/

Sosarkissian 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection

This article has now been protected for over two months. Is there any reason why it should not be unprotected? Kelly Martin 15:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Firstly, i'm no expert on the whole Armenian problem, but in the interests of improving this article i wanted to ask some questions.

If genocide did happen and academics have proved it irrefutable (as this article suggests), why has the UN still not recognised an Armenian genocide?

I don't see how this article suggest the genocide to be irrefutable, it only present positions. Furthermore, the UN did recognize it in 1985, a year after the Permanent People Tribunal. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This was covered in various occasions here. And most recently, there: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Photos.2C_photo_names.2C_photo_captions_and_use_of_.22deportation.22. You can have the full report that was voted, from the booklet: “UNITED NATIONS REPORT ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: UN 38th Session, 1985.” You can follow the link here for a resume: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Teaching_Armenian_Genocide/Resources_6__Armenian_Genocide/resources_6__armenian_genocide.html

Or either, you could have excerpts of the voted report, here: http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/DocsMaps/UN%20Report%20on%20Genocide%20(excerpts).pdf

Dear Felix,

This VOTED report of yours is nothing but personel idea of a sub comite member. On the very same document it is stated that it is NOT AN UN PUBLICATION. For all, please read the document footnotes.--Isarioglu 00:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There is also a book published under the title: “Le Génocide des Arméniens devant l'ONU” in French, covering the entire issue, from the 70s, famous paragraph 30, which Turkey forced to delete, to the final report and it's vote. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For a country/regime/people to be found guilty of genocide shouldnt there be some sort of trial in a court of law e.g. Milosevic? Were the Turks not cleared in the Malta Tribunals?

There never was a Malta Tribunal, there were Malta prisoners, and this was covered in the talk page extensively in the past. On the other hand, there was the Military tribunal which convicted the leaders of the Ittihadist party. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do many respectable sources still refer to it as Armenian massacres e.g. BBC, Reuters, Encylopedia Brittanica?

Encyclopedia Brittanica entry regarding the topic has been widely changed over the years, and is the only encyclopedia of its type, that treat the subject like this. Le Robert, Universalis, Encarta and various other encyclopedias refer it as genocide. As for newspapers, various other newspapers refer it as genocide, and other times it depend on the writer. The New York Times, and the Boston Globe have officially recognized it. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone watch the movie "WACKING THE DOG" ? --Isarioglu 00:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're trying to be silly, it's really not the place. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I notice the article states that the Swiss government recognises an Armenian genocide, but this news articlesays the House of Representatives does, but the government does not.

Not exactly. The article doesn't say the government, but rather the country. While Canada recognize the genocide, the ministers refused to take position, the recognition of the country depend on the vote of the deputies, those that were elected democratically to represent the citizens. The national council of Switzerland, The Swiss House of Representatives is what count as to say recognized by a country. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Workers Party Chairman Dogu Perincek has violeted the Swiss law on "Denial of Armenian Genocide" some week ago , willingly and in public. Swiss police arrested him. After questioning, they let him free, against his protests. He DEMANDED a court in Bern and in the coming month, we will see a good law match.--Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If many countries still do not recognise a genocide aswell as the UN, is it fair for this article to use the subsection "Turkish government denial"? Does this not unfairly create the impression that there is no doubt surrounding the genocide claims and that Turkey is lying? Isn't this quite a strong POV?

As I said, the UN recognized it in 1985, as for countries, as I told you in another entry, many countries still do not recognize the Holocaust, will you propose to modify the Holocaust entry for this? Oh and, not recognition does not mean denial. Only Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the genocide. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

See above. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that my only interest in this article is to create a fair and balanced topic, the kind that is seen in many other respectable sources on the Internet. --

Thanks Lord! A sane person.

Your assumptions regarding the [lack of] sanity of certain persons are unwelcome here in Wikipedia. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for reminding me. Would you also remind Mr.Troth for "Can you truly be so ignorant and stupid? --THOTH 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC) please ?

Suggestion about "Turkish government denial"

I propose to move it in the talk page for further discussion as to how to make it more NPOV. So let make that a poll. Agree or oppose? Fadix 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion is that it be renamed "Turkish government position". I really cannot imagine any printed encylopedia using the term "Turkish government denial", it wreaks of POV (for the short term i agree it be moved to discussion). --E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a proposition, to have a Turkish government position in the article, presenting the different official versions of the article. Coolcat could not accept. There is something called "Turkish government denial," it doesn't require a statment to be true to be accepted, in fact, Wikipedias NPOV policy treat subjects not to reveal truths, but positions. How you should see this thing, is: "Is there a phenomenen called "Turkish government denial"? There is one. You then present those that support the position, and reject it, and what both positions are. The reason why I have proposed to redraw that section was not because of its title, but rather the content that is not really NPOV. If you move it here, I will have no problem, but I want still to know what others believe, because I am really not interested to face another revert war. Fadix 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you really imagine (or have you actually seen) a section entitled "Turkish government denial" in any credible Encyclopedia or other source explaining these events? Your effectively saying a genocide did happen, and Turkey is denying it. For there to be a "Turkish government denial", then there must be an "Armenian genocide" to be denied, since the latter is a matter of dispute not just between Turkey and Armenia, but between several other countries and Armenian also (e.g. UK as below) then for the article to hold such a position is POV.

I'm all for discussing it here, reverts get you nowhere. When you say "move it here", do you actually mean a cut and paste from the article for the time being, or just to create a discussion on it? --E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Turkish government denial, is an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles are not based on wherever or not something did happen, but rather if such a position exist. There is a position called the Turkish government position, as denial. If we were to apply your logic here, we should probably take off, or delete every articles other than mathematical concepts, because, there will be a position against the maintained position that the article cover. Much like the Armenian genocide entry. The Armenian genocide entry exist, because a position called “Armenian genocide” exist, and this regardless of wherever or not there was an Armenian genocide.

The section on the other hand, should specify what the position is. Something such: “What is often called the Turkish government denial, is the position maintained by scholars that support the theses of genocide, on the other hand, the Turkish government refuse to accept its position as denial etc...” Fadix 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I say again Fadix, have you ever seen in any credible encylopedia, a section entitled "Turkish government denial"? It is a completely partisan statement aimed at reaffirming one point of view at the expense of another. What i suggest is a section entitled "Turkish government position" - within this explanation there can be a sentence such as "Those who accept the genocide thesis view this position as denial".

Your proposition is problematic thanks to Coolcat. The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless. As for encyclopedia, we can not search entries name in other encyclopedias the way you do. You should rather ask yourself if the name is encyclopedic, I really don't see how it is not. Is there a position called : "Turkish government denial"? There is one, I don't see how presenting a title for a position, suggest the position in question to be true, since the article itself present it, as a position maintained by some. All articles are presented this way in Wikipedia. If we apply your logic, we should not present an entry regarding Santa, because only presenting that title would suggest that Santa exist. Fadix 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My proposition is not problematic at all, since i cannot spot any version of the Turkish government position in the article. Fadix, if your going to be stubborn about removing such a blindingly obvious POV statement as "Turkish government denial", something no respectable source of information would print or has printed, then what hope do i have of getting anything changed in this article? --E.A 12:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, please show me where in this article the Turkish governments position is sufficiently conveyed to make my idea problematic and useless. --E.A 18:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish government position was sufficiently conveyed, according to the NPOV policy here in Wikipedia, which stat that idealy as much spaces should be left to a position as it is supported by the accademia. Fadix 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish governments position was not conveyed at all. Firstly, this article contains a declaration by 69 American academia supporting Turkeys view, secondly whether or not academia support it, Turkeys position exists and has reprucussions which must be explained here. --E.A 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So according to you, the lead section is lacking of that? Mind you again, that Coolcat was the one that refused to have a Turkish government version, because according to him, it would lead people to believe that the Turkish government version is wrong. The article was worked around as to merge the Turkish government version in it, rather than having its own section, largely because of Coolcat. Don't blame me for something I am not responsable of. Fadix 22:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't talk in my name. I suggested there were many inaccuracies. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

UN recognition

I wanted to make a separate section on this because i feel it is important. I think we have to establish whether the adoption of that report is tantamount to recognition from the UN. I would have thought recognition would have come in the form of a Resolution, not an obscure sentence in a general report on genocide. Furthermore, i have read on other websites that "The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence" (ATAA), perhaps someone can clarify this.

Also on the Turkish embassy website it states "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide." Can someone explain this statement?

--E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When it is a resolution, the “other side” will claim that it is not researched and is political, when it is a report, in this cases the result of 8 years of studies, it is claimed it isn't a resolution. The thing is that the report was submitted to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and voted. Call this what you want, it was voted and passed. The Sub-committee never refused for lack of evidences, there are transcriptions of the panel discussion, and not only for the Armenian cases, and I don't recall reading anything such. What happened is that there were problems to the UN, because the nature of the resolution, it was taken and presented to the Sub-committee, and later placed to a vote. Farhan Haq statement could mean everything, it could be interpreted as, the report being transferred from the UN proper, to the sub-committee as a refusal for the UN, but this interpretation still is questionable, because the reason why it was transferred had more to do with the nature of the report than the reference to the Armenians. Besides, I don't remember there is a Holocaust resolution testifying the “accuracy” of the event. While the 1948 convention did include provision for it, the report submitted few months before that convention regarding the Armenian massacre made of the cases inclusive of the convention. I do think that the 70s famous paragraph 30, referencing to the Armenian cases was enough clear about this, before the Turkish side, with a Pakistani lawyer tried to redraw it. Fadix 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian massacres is that people were tried and found guilty of the Holocaust, whereas the Armenian massacres rely on historical interpretation to find a country guilty of genocide. I would have thought for a country to be accused of genocide there must be some legal findings, this sentiment is echoed by a recent House of Lords discussion for example when Lord Triesman stated:

"neither this Government nor previous British governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN convention on genocide...

...The judgment required under the United Nations convention is that it can be demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the difference is made." (http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Lords_-_14July05/lords_-_14july05.html)

How would the British government be able to say lawyers do not find the evidence points to genocide according to UN conventions, when you say the UN recognises genocide?

Also, with regards to Switzerland, i think a distinction should be made as was done with Canada, that while the House of Representatives recognises the genocide, the governments holds a different position: "swissinfo: Why won't the Senate recognise the Armenian deaths as genocide like other western countries?

P.B.: I think that the position of our government is the better one. I don't feel comfortable being the judge of the whole world and of something that happened a long time ago."

(http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6003167&cKey=1123784833000)--E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been there. The Turkish military tribunal found guilty, the leaders of the Ittihadist party, of having planned the destruction of the Armenians. The term, crimes against humanity and civilization, was coined during World War I to refer to the Armenian cases. The first time, the German equivalent for the term genocide, was ever used massively was before even Raphael Lemkin has coined the term, and this to refer to the Armenian cases. In 1948, months before the genocide convention, a report prepared by the UN, and this after Lemkin presentation of the cases for the last years before it was adopted, presented the Armenian cases, which was used as one of the foundations of the convention on genocide. Raphael Lemkin, the person whom coined the term genocide, became a lawyer, and worked in finding a legal term, which would be applicable to condemn authors of such acts, because of what happened to the Armenians. I have presented here Lemkins own wittings explaining this, which was as well published in the Genocide encyclopedia written by Israel Charny.

The UN, when reviewing the cases of genocides in the 70s, because they thought that an upgrade was in order, to include all the reported cases of genocide, included the Armenian cases, as if, it was never debated, before the Turkish side pressurized and forced it to be redrawn. The Permanent Peoples Tribunal, a year before the UN vote, clearly mentions that the Armenian cases has all of the elements of the UN convention for genocide, without ignoring here, that Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term, included the cases with the Holocaust, not only as cases of genocides, but elements and part of the definition of genocide. Which basically means that it is not the Armenian cases that should respect elements to be called genocide, but rather, any other cases having the components of the Armenian genocide, to be a genocide.

Not only, was there a tribunal judging the authors of the Armenian massacres, but those condemned were the leaders, and their link in the destruction of the Armenians was made, more clearly than the Nuremberg.

Coming to the distinction, countries recognition is independents from a government. I followed the entire thing here in Canada, I have witnessed a deputy reading a pamphlet prepared by the Turkish embassy, with the moon and star on the cover. I have witnessed how Turkey has pressurized Canada and has threatened. I have viewed something that I have never seen, even during the vote on Gay marriage. The deputies of the governing party voting against the ministers, and this, IN MASS, I have witnessed the minister of justice that was pressurized by the Turkish government to vote against, whom to not be forced to vote against the governments line, was not present at the house. I have witnessed, the prime ministers absence during the vote. Do you even have an idea, what the Turkish government did to threaten Canada? Do you have an idea on what they did until the last second? I wonder how one can dare claiming that the governments position was not the same. The governments position, was to not take position because of the repercussions, while they have made a little statement to the Turkish embassy, that was later manipulated as to make of it, as if the Canadian government contrary to the house deny the genocide.

Did you watch, Democracy Now, few days ago, about the allegations that a Turkish embassy member declaring that the cost of Hastert redrawel of the genocide resolution of 2000 in the US, would be of 500,000$, when internal polls indicated that the resolution, if put to vote would have passed? Why do you think, that a majority of the US states, recognize the genocide, while resolutions are drawn even before they are voted in the Federal? How can one equate, a non-vote as denial, the way you do? When governments recognize, revisionists claim, history must be decided by historians, when historians are referred, it is claimed that the country in which they live, does not officially recognize the genocide. So, here let stick, the the deputies voted democratically by the citizens of a country.

Coming to Switzerland, how dare you mention this, after the Turkish government has treatned to sue Switzerland, and threatened it, in a way, so childishtic, that I couldn't find any words from all the languages I know to describe such a behavior. And when refuse to pass a resolution to vote, revisionists are the first to come and claim, the country do not recognize the genocide. Let me tell you E.A., since you quote Lord Triesman. Let refer to the link here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50714-02.htm

Before I continue, E.A., do you know which lawyers are referred here? Fadix 19:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your completely missing my point Fadix, i'm not trying to say Switzerland does not recognise a genocide. I'm trying to point out that like Canada, the Swiss government does not take the position of its House of Representatives as shown in those Swiss news articles. Since the entry on Canada highlights this in the article, then why does it not say the same for Switzerland, this is all i am trying to point out. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement regarding Canada was added there, before there was attempts to remove Canada from the list. Governments recognition is subjective, and I advance that this statement about Canada should be taken back, and I believe the reason is obvious. Governments change, a government can decide to take position, another not, what counts is what has been placed to votes, such as resolutions and laws, those remains. It is not governments that decide on the adoptions of resolutions or laws, but to the deputies who vote. This is what it has always been, no one remind about governments positions during the voting of resolutions and laws, but rather if it has passed or not. Both the Canadian senate, and the House have recognized the event as genocide. The house is formed of the deputies voted democratically to represent the citizens, what a government during a mandate think, can be reverted by another governments words. Besides, did you listen to the debates before it was voted? Ignoring the person that has read a pamphlet of the Turkish embassy, there was no one questioning the events. The few others that spoke opposing it, was the concerns of Turkish answer and the canceling of Canadian contracts. The government has affirmed to the Turkish embassy, that the House has spoken, and that the government should not be considered as responsible. The prime minister is the leader of our government and he decided to not vote, because he could just not do what the Turkish government has instructed him to do, and this, neither the minister of justice. For those reasons, any more statements clarifying the Canadian governments position is bogus, because it suggest Canadian governments as if they were eternal and not voted each 4-5 years. Fadix 23:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile

Stating that the "Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile" is a legitimate source of recognition undermines this articles credibility. Firstly, there is no Kurdistan from which this "parliament" is exiled, secondly, the 'recognition' was delivered by the head of the PKK (a terrorist organisation recognised by EU and US), Abdullah Ocalan. By using this your supporting the Kurdish POV and making this article naturally anti-Turkish by supporting PKK activities to split Turkey. --E.A 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted the official name of that body, which was translated by I don't know whom. That body exist, and it recognize it. What do you suggest? Fadix 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can find a legitimate body, i suggest it be completely removed. Its a mickey mouse title and it doesn't help this article one bit. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a registered organization founded in Hague, it now has a registered address in Belgium. The organization claim to represent not only the Kurds of Turkey, but also those of Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. I don't see why it should be removed. If you think the words are misleading, you can place a parantheses to clarify that it is not a parlement in the proper sense of the term. Fadix 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

That section is all upside down, informations not important enough are included, others more important, not. By important I mean, the recognitions by states, and organizations etc. By not important, I mean, statments given by the Turkish government or such. Beside, a timeline is too long, and a recent one not really related with the genocide itself, I propose to creat another page for it. Any suggestions? Fadix 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing Istanbul for Constantinople

There was a reason why first when I added that section, I named Constantinople, this was changed by Coolcat. It is a question of name conventions. In historical works, places are called according to what they were called during the period treated. In 1919, English language publications mostly used Constantinople, and in accordance to name convention, this is the term that should be used. The same is done also for the Istanbul entry, I don't see the word Constantinople deleted there. Also the French entry of the Armenian genocide, for the trial, use also Constantinople and not Istanbul. Fadix 18:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Due to no response for my suggestion on "Turkish government position", i've gone ahead and implemented it (especially since i notice French Wikipedia using the same). I've reworded some parts, reshuffled paragraph on recognition and added other small edits. --E.A 21:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, what no response? There is a warning in the talk page, saying that since the article is controversial, there should be discussions here before any important changes, which you did not respect. You refuse to accept that "Turkish government denial" is encyclopedic, but the Genocide Encyclopdia by Israel Charny, has just such a section regarding what is termed there as the denial by the Turkish state. Universalis, the French encyclopedia, treat the subject by terming it as such. You were free to add a section regarding the Turkish government position, but this is not what you did, you entirly modified an already existing section without discussing it. For now, I have to think of what to do of it. Fadix 21:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You told me my suggestion to have a Turkish government position was pointless because "The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless.". I asked you twice to show me an example of the Turkish government position within this article and you didn't respond. After looking at the French entry on this article i noticed "La position turque" and decided the same can be applied here. --E.A 22:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention to the lead text, and compare it with the French enty. The text there was to have its own section, and only a presentation that the Turkish government reject such "charges" was to be presented. This was merged, mostly because of Coolcat implications. The French entry, on the other hand, has no such clarification on the lead section regarding the Turkish government position, and for this reason, it has a need to have a Turkish government position, which basically say what the English version say in its lead section. More than that, for it to need more informations, it would be misleading and push the article into POV, because it misrepresent, and give a government version more places than, let say the position of the Accemia, which in what concerns this cases should have a section, and it has not, because the last time I checked, they are those that write history and not governments. You are politicizing the issue, while history is supposed to be as much apolitical as possible. Another differences with the French version, is that the French versions, Turkish government section, does not do what you do, after covering what the English lead sections Turkish position, it present the Turkish governments answer to the "charges" and more current events, most of that section is about that, as to not misrepresent positions to mislead readers into believing that both positions are supported equaly, when they are obviously not. Had the English version been a copy of the French or German version, it would be called pro-Armenian POV, even thought, the French version is moderated by an Administrator. But let ignore all of this, had you wanted and proposed to have a Turkish version section, which would include the government and the Turkish public opinion, there was nothing I could have done about it, but only be cautious as to respect the ratio. But what you did, is to propose changing an already existing section that had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have, and finally you decided to push that and entry modify that section. This is deleting of information, and is simply wrong. But since the mistake has been done, and I believe that we can work out this way, let it work this way then. But in future, I hope that before changing important sections of the article, you discuss it in the talk page, because I will revert it, because I will have to do that. Fadix 22:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not attempted to claim that anything Turkey says has the same amount of consensus as opponents of her view. Everything wrote was in relation to what the official Turkish government position is, hence: "Turkey does not accept", "Turkey holds the position that", "Turkey states that", "Turkey believes", "Turkey also critcises" etc etc. I could have gone into a lot more depth on this, but as it is, i have provided 1 paragraph in the whole article on the Turkish government POV. The only information which i removed, which i did plan to discuss here but forgot in all this writing, was the allegations that Turkey funds a world wide attempt to deny a genocide. This is accusing the government of bribery and until definitive proof of these allegations is provided then i felt it too POV to be included.

I am particularly insulted by your comment that i am changing things because it "had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have". Your suggesting i'm trying to manipulate a very serious article to misinform readers according to my own views. The only thing i am trying to attempt is to give this article some fairness and credbility. --E.A 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not accused you of such. Don't take me wrong, as I said, we will be working with your changes. What was my real problem is the changes of a section. While the subject of that section was about one thing, you have made of it a section regarding the Turkish government position. That's what I really have against. As for the Turkish governments "corruption," E.A., while corruption is a strong word, the information of Turkish government financing is even not denied by the Turkish state. Financing of universities is public domain information, and you can recieve the informations without much difficulties. The ITS and ARIT grants do exist, in a way, that such grants from the Israeli state to American universities the way they exist with Turkey, don't even exist. All the noises around universities like Princeton, were about real financings not only claims. The only reason it was rejected in UCLA, was because of the Armenian students and community there that was pretty strong, had it not been of this, the UCLA among the professors of Middle East studies, would have those DIRECTLY financed through the ITS and ARIT grants. Anyway, the change is made right? Lets stick to it, and work on this new version. OK? Fadix 23:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Websites refered on the bottom of the article.

There are websites with duplicate informations, as well as in the media, articles taken from the websites. There are hundreds of websites, and many articles in those websites. I believe there should be a process of selection of each websites. Supposes that we find a website that contains everything there is in two other websites, I don't see the need to include those other websites. Also, if those websites contains the texts in question referenced in the media section, why shousing those texts and not others in the same websites? Any proposition Fadix 16:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

Those changes were part of the changes that I said should have been done, before starting to footnote. Also, the timeline should be restricted to only very important dates linked with genocide recognition and such. So I propose to have two timeline, one in the article, and another with more dates. Fadix 21:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has gotten substantially worse in the last couple of days. Somebody went through and "neutralized" everything with bad writing and terrible grammar -- subject-verb agreement has been particularly destroyed by substituting phrases.

can you give examples please?

Turkish government position - lack of sympathetic tone?

I have been reading up on Wikipedia NPOV policy, and it states that:

"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."

I feel the article at present does not show a sympathetic tone to the Turkish governments view. The initial edits i created gave one small paragraph to the Turkish gov POV. The edits that were added to this however dissmissed the Turkish gov POV as it went along and is so doing abandoned a smypathetic tone. I think the Turkish gov POV should only be refuted in one or two lines such "the statistics the government presents are disputed in certain academic circles", it should not be dismissed with a section larger than the Turkish gov POV itself, which as it stands, is one paragraph in an entire article. Let me know what you think. --A.Garnet 16:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have added Halacoglu, who is leading the Turkish history foundation, and the leading figure the Turkish government has now. I don't see how presenting his position is not sympatic to the Turkish governments position. That's what most of the edit to your section was about. Fadix 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Tone is too vague a construct for our immediate purposes, perhaps. Our aim is provide an account which cites authoritative, representatively selected sources. More concretely and specifically, what changes or additions do you suggest we adopt, A.Garnet? El_C 00:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, rather than dismiss the governments figures, perhaps we should highlight that its view does have some backing from academics such as Justin Mcarthy who highglighted that hundreds of thousands of Muslism also perished. If he is the only academic who supports this, then we can say that "These views are outnumbered by those who support the genocide theses such as the Association of genocide shcolars" etc. I will continue this tommorow, thanks for your help. --A.Garnet 01:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As I told to Coolcat, I will be adding McCarthy(he is included in both of my created articles), I have no problem with adding relevant things, but I oppose unjustified deletion. Another note, do also consider that this entry is not about Muslim losses, and therefor, it can not be really developped much here, I agree adding McCarthy there though(I already planned to do that). Fadix 04:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we add words of sympathy to the millions of Germans who lost their lives in WWII to the Holocaust section? Is this somehow relevent information? Where are the direct observations that tie any Turkish deaths to the Armenian Genocide (outside of death by disease because of the hundreds of thousands of bodies of slaughtered Armenians that were left lying about throughout the countryside). Now I do wish to add that I believe a discussion of the conditions in the Ottoman Empire - with contraction and subsequant refugee influx into Anatolia and the effect of the falling fortunes of the Ottoman Empire in the mindset of the ruling Turkish elits and masses - and specifically upon the development of the political views of the radical element of the CUP who came to power beginning in 1910/11 is relevant. It is relevant in the same way as a discussion of the political and economic circumstances of the Weimar Republic and the resultant rise of Hitler and the Nazis and the shaping of their political outlook (and that of the German massess) is relevant to a discusion of why would Germans commit genocide against the jews in WWII. in this regard the poor circumstances - political, economic and in regard to self-esteem - as well as the mechanisms of scapegoatism - and why the antagonism toward (Orthodox Christian) Armenians - etc - this information requires presentation for readers to understand how an environment came to be created where such a decision could be made and such actions could be taken to commit mass murder of an entire people - as the environment of despair and collapse and the need to blame affected the German mentality towards the Jews a very similar set of circumstances led to the Turkish animosities toward (and willingness to villanize) Armenians (who as a group were no real threat, had nothing to do with any significant Turkish/Muslim deaths prior to or during the Genocide and where such extreme violent actions taken against them could not be ever rationally justified). So yes in this regard deaths of and the presence of refugee Turks/Turkics in Anatolia is properly seen as one factor in creating an environment that allowed development of a mindset to justify extreme violent and inhumane action against the otherwise inocuous Armenians of the Empire. This is one of several major factors. --THOTH 17:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand this page is not about Muslim losses but it can be said "McCarthy also highlights that a large numbers of Muslims were also killed" etc, doesn't need to be expanded. --A.Garnet 20:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inserting this statement is akin to inserting a statement in the Holocaust section by David Irving that references German deaths in WWII. First these deaths had little if anything to do with Jews/Armenians and neither have anything to do with the Holocaust or Genocide. Again - if this presentation was such to actually discuss the history and the factors that caused the CUP and the Kurds and (various) Turks of the Ottoman Empire to begin slaughtering Armenians - then a discussion/presentation of the prior suffering of various Turkics at the hand of other orthodox and the contribution of such to the animosity against Armenians (one of many factors) - then yeah - I would say lets talk about it. But just to reference McCarthy's misleading and (as said) utrue claims adds nothing to any real or factual understanding of the Armenian Genocide. McCarthy's vaugue claims (largely from singular and much disputed/discredited sources) of some kind of Armenian civil war during this period just do not hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. To validate such poor (sponsor pleasing) (so-called) scholarship does this issue a great diservice and again is the equivilant of including such "scholorship" as irving and Fairusson in a discussion of the Holocaust (as anything other then truth twisting apologists for the perpetrators). Don't forget that the Genocide of the Armenians - the methodology, the enactment, the results were witnessed by a great many - even allies of the Turks - and all saw it for what it was. There is no evidence of any significant "civil war" "revolt" or any such thing during this period. What we have here is a government of a militarized Empire ruled by a twisted political party (again not at all unlike the situation in Germany in the 1930s/40s) that decided to employ the state aparatus - including quazi offical elemts such as the Special Organization irregulars - and under a mantle of legality and military necessity - proceede to act to eliminate an unwanted minority ethno-religious element in their midsts and to plunder such. This is what the Armenian Genocide is all about. If you do not accept this as fact then you are delusioned and/or in denial and are basically declaring yourself unable to process information and understand historical events. The evdence to support such a view is overwhelming - just as we have with the Holocaust. To deny the essential facts of either is equally suspect. --THOTH 17:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, this is very straightforward, the Turkish governments position is that it was not genocide but part of a civil conflict in which many hundreds of thousands of muslims also died. If this view can be verified by a scholar i.e. McCarthy, then it is Wikipedias job to include this opposing position. Please do not make personal remarks such as "you are delusioned and/or in denial", Wikipedia has no place for what you or I think about certain views, it is only our job to explain these views as neutral as possible, this you dont seem to understand. --A.Garnet 19:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy's "view" is just as verifyable as Irving's contetion that the Nazis never killed Jews using gas chambers - the only difference is that McCarthy has less of a true scholarly basis to make such untrue statements (Do we blame Jews for German deaths in WWII or even imply that somehow there is any legitimacy to present that Germans died in a war that occured at the same time that they were deliberatly killing/murdering Jewish civilians - is this in any way relevant to what the Holocaust was about - the lessons of it - the actual enacment of it? NO. Neither is the fact that Turkish soldiers died in Gallipoli or were killed by Russians at the front. Even the fact that many Turkish villages and inhabitants were destroyed by marauding Cossaks or such has no direct relevance to the Armenian Genocide and to present it as such is to perpetuate a lie and a particularly sinister one that is most insulting to Armenians and others who arte concerned with victims of genocide and the ability of the perpetrators to escape punishment for their foul deeds.--THOTH 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk less, edit more

I've just archived 648kb from this talk page. This is ridiculous. Why not just edit a bit more? If you want to go and discuss the issues, find a forum. This talk page is intended solely for discussing the article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm guilty also here, sorry. I think someone should monitor the talk page and delet things that have nothing to do with the article, including mine. :) Fadix 21:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cats Suggestions

I will post suggestions and apply them to the article 24 hrs later if no objection is posted. If you think the change is inaproporate, please post your reasoning. Thank you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Font in green is stuff I propose be added/rewritten, red is stuff I propose beeing removed/rewritten. Regular text is stuff I don't see a change is necesary. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I intend to not participate on any other discussion aside from this section. I will read them if prompted but I dont want to get involed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I object. Do not make these changes.--THOTH 18:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro

{all material till first section) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or the Armenian Massacre or the Armenian Relocation) is a term which refer to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of hundreds of thousands or over a million Armenians, during the government of Young Turks from 1915 to 1917.

Reason: The official name of the event is a "relocation". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Source: http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/relocation.htm --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Relocation is a term used by a fringe in the Academia, and can therefore have no place in the lead. Furthermore, as discussed, tallarmeniantale is not a valid source for anything, it fabricate, and this I have already shown. Fadix 21:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That response conflicts with NPoV www.tallarmeniantale.com is a highly notable source. Its on top 10 of google hits. The offical definition of the incident is a relocation. Also thats how the Turkish Goverment referances to the incident. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

We've been there already, tallarmeniantale is NOT a notable source, it doesn't matter if it's first or last in google. Beside, I have already made a translation of the Arabic term which was used in Ottoman Turkish... the official Turkish foreign ministry translation use the term deportation. It is not an official version, the term relocation is used by a fringe in the Academia, the lead should make an introduction, or give a clue about the subject, it can not contain a term that is a fringe... and now you want to present such a minority view as official position. Fadix 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So you are disputing that the incident was not officialy a relocation? Tallarmeniantale is a site disputing the armenian genocide it is top 10 ongoogle and is notable. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Relocation is an English term, Tehcir is derived from Arabic, and can hardly be translated as "relocation" contrary to what Halacoglu affirms. You can ask any Arab speaking(you won't have much difficulty to find them in Wikipedia) to translate the Arabic transliteration of the word. Gurun own retranscription of Envers law of evacuation, in its own Ottoman Turkish, use the term forced evacuation, which can also mean( the word Tehcir), destruction of the enemy through evacuation. Relocation also imply a successful movement of population in a preestablished destination... it is not the cases, because men and women were separated from the beggining, much like what happened to French Canadians in Accadie, when the British have separated the population. Relocation imply maintaining the population in another area. The "Basbakanlik Devlet Genel Müdürlük of the "Osmanli Arsivi Daire Baskanligi" which is the General Directorate of State Archives(Prime Ministry of the Turkish republic) official translation which is also published in the official Turkish foreign ministry website, is deportation and not relocation. Besides, the event called the Armenian Genocide, is not also called Armenian relocation, because even if we maintain your logic, the event would be the relocation, and what went wrong during that relocation. In short, neither relocation is official, and neither that term is used in the original Ottoman records, for the simple reason as the equivalent of "population transfer" was not used, which exist, since it has been used when reffering to the Greek and Turkish population exchange.

Please have a read of [22] --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I already did, and already answered to it.

Tallarmeniantale is not a reputable neither notable website, Torque is the author of that website, the website copypasted wide range of materials which are known fabrication from Multu and his other aliases, the legendary newsgroups spammer. The website also slanders authors and people, makes racist statments. That website can in now way be used as reference. Fadix 00:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to use it as referance on few occasions. You are welcome to not like it. So long as anything I get from them and follow the NPoV format I can use any website. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact you you will still be using a racist website, tells a lot about you Coolcat. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and uses only reputable sources, not what a racist has to say. This like it or not. Fadix 02:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That conflicts with WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Coolcat, you can't just use any trashy website as a "reference" on Wikipedia. We are supposed to use recognized and important scholary sources here, so you will have to establish it as an important and a scholary source, in order to use it as a reference here. -- Karl Meier 07:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

People posting there according to the website is PHD professors. You are welcome to not like what they are saying, this doesnt mean you are entitled to disallow me adding it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How many times have I to tell you this. THE WEBSITE FABRICATE STATMENTS NEVER MADE. Is that clear for you? Since you can search Google archives, why don't you search my answers to Torque(the author of the website), in which I SHOW that statments attributed to people were FABRICATED!!! Like it or not, this website is not a credible source to be used in an Encyclopedia. Fadix 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not have the authority to dismiss a web site of that notability. What is fabricated? According to who? Cite sources? I am well aware of certain "documents" armenians forged to "porove" the genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

www.kultur.gov.tr [23] is an official page of the Turkish Goverment. It referances to an armenian relocation. Are you dismissing that one too? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat - this suggestion - to add the term "Armenian relocation" is quite absurd - as are your other suggestions. As you point out - the Turkish Government calls this/these events "relocation" - however outside of this (rather dubious) position (that of the perpetrators) - this position runs counter to that of the UN, various independent tribunals, the position of the Association of Genocide Scholars, hundreds of Holocaust and Genocide scholars (as indicated in full page newspaper adds and such), and - as has been clearly documented - the intent of Lemkin the originator of the word Genocide itself - coined in large part specifically to describe the mass killings and destruction of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks. So NO! The use of the term Genocide in this case has been proven and justified beyond a doubt. When the Holocaust section is renamed the "German internment of undesireables" then we can talk - until then let us stick to the facts and not spread sick and insulting denilaist propoganda.--THOTH 17:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Propoganda is a loaded term. I have cited at least one book which uses relocation in its title. Its well sourced I do not see a reason why it cannot bereferanced as "Relocation". From your statement "the Turkish Government calls this/these events "relocation"", since the turkish gov is a reputable source, that is perfectly fine. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide.

Several facts in connection with the incident are a matter of ongoing dispute among scholars as well as beeng a diplomatic dispute between Armenia, and Turkey, as well as other parts of the international community) dispute. Although there is a level of agreement in the events leading to the incident, several scholars, most notably Justin McCarthy, as well as the Turkish government rejects the classification "genocide", and argue that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I as it is observed elsewhere in Europe as well. Despite this thesis, a significant portion of scholars follow the theisis referencing the incident as a genocide.

Reason: Several scholars most notably Justin McCarthy does not see this as a "genocide" it isn't just a diplomatic dispute. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Reason: The incident should be refered as an incident rather that screeming "Genocide", it isn't for us wikipedia editors to decide. The reader can decide after reading the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Reason: I also believe it is not a simple Turkey vs International comminuty. Diplomatic arguments should be presented in their own section later. Also I believe Azerbaijan also supports Turkey's views. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, your proposition is misleading, it is not because Zundel, Irving, Rudolf etc. dispute the Holocaust that it means that the Holocaust is disputed among scholars. The fact is that the association of Holocaust and genocide scholars call it genocide and most Western scholars. The relvant international bodies considers it such... this is not about Wikipedians deciding anything. But, there is one thing I agree with you, and I did change it before it was changed back, and it is the sentence "Several facts in connection with the genocide..." this sentence could be made neutral, the rest is already neutral, I don't see why McCarthys name should have a place in the lead, him out of various other scholars. I will be adding him soon, but not in the lead, it will happen in the process of footnoting. Fadix 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy is at least one name disputing the genocide. There exists a significant number of scholars accepting and dismissing it's "Genocide" status. Wikipedia NPoV suggests not taking sides. The Incident is a more approporate term since it neither accepts or denies the genocide status. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars " establishes a baseless statistics. According to who? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

But you provide no justification here, why McCarthys name should be in the lead, there are thousands of scholars, yet you want to have placed McCarthys name on the lead. As for the term incident, we've been there already, you got not concensus there, please accept others decision. Incident is not an appopriate term. Most Western scholars is a statistical fact. We've been there already, the largest Worldwide body including most Holocaust and Genocide scholars recognize it as such and even call it undeniable. I am not building statistics here, even revisionists like McCarthy recognize the genocide version is accepted by the majority. Fadix 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a loaded statement. Can you base the "most" statistic to something. If it is so widely known a site should have it. Correct NPOV format is: According to "source", "foo" is "bla bla". Fine he can go else where in the article, I am only concerned with the intro atm so I dont care about the rest for now. Incident is an aproporate word because at least Turkey and McCarthy denies that this is indeed a "genocide". Thats a very significant POV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite right, the "most" is not only a question of "according to sources," this is as true as saying that Turkeys majority religion is Islam. The number of works that have been published in scholarly publications and books makes it obvious as to the proportion of those maintaing a position against another. This is about statistics, it is not according to sources. "Incident" is unacceptable term, you want to replace a term used by a majority, with a term that suggest a civil war, which is a thesis rejected by most scholars. As I said, I accept that part can be made more NPOV, but object to what you are proposition, because it will make that part of POV than it is. Fadix 00:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is loaded and baseless. Nor is it relevant just because the majority says something doesnt necesarily make it right hence in an open minded enviorment, reader should be able to read article without an initial bias. It serves no purpos on explaining the events of early 1900's. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No it is not, no where it is said that the what the majority maintains is the truth, that most scholars in the field believe is very relevant and important to be included in the lead. We've been there already, and it is not a biases. As I can see, you haven't changed a bit. Fadix 02:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Who says there is a majority in views? It is a loaded claim without any basis. Feel free to cite sources but I strongly believe this does not belong to lead. This conflicts with WP:NPR as well. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

For the billionth time. "The Association of Genocide Scholars" is a worldwide organization, the largest organization which includes most of the researchers in the field of genocide studies. IT OFFICIALLY call it a genocide and consider it as undeniable. Just recently the organization wrote a letter to the President of Turkey. Which means, that most who write about the topic, do call it such. This being the cases, this is an established thing. They've recognized it, it is not "according to" ..., and it is very important to know in the lead, that those that specialize in the field mostly recognize it as such. We've been there, and you still want it to get it removed. Call any administrator here RIGHT NOW, and let see if this conflict with any Wikipedia policy. Fadix 16:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine a certain community sees it as genocide. A certain community does not. You mean anybody not a member of that association cannot be a notable scholar? People write letters everyday. That doesn't create a majority. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - once again your suggestions are false and misleading. This issue is not a dispute between Turkey and Armenia - in fact it is not a dispute at all. Their is no real dispute concerning the events that comprised the Armenian Genocide. Armenian males were drafted then disarmed, put to forced labor and then were slaughtered. The remaining Armenian women, elderly and children were systematically taken from their homes and killed in a variety of manner including marching many leagues without food or water as well as direct killing. There is a huge body of direct eyewitness evidence that supports these facts and supports the contention that this program was directed by the CUP as the controlling element of the Ottoman Turkish Government and that the intention was to annhiliate the Armenians as a people and eliminate them from Anatolia. These are facts and the body of evidence that supports these facts is considerable. The existance of Turkish counter-claims and of certain scholars who trumpet such are examples of Genocide denial that in fact are an ongoing part of the crime. I fully believe that both a full listing of the evidence regarding the genocide - including eyewitness accounts - particualry from offical government sources as well as a full account of the Government of Turkey's sponsored denial is in order in this section (or as an addendum or such). In this regard we can examine who McCarthy is, what he is claiming and why and also the various refuations of his claims - of which there are many. And if you or others insist on listing McCarthy as a source of counterclaims to the Genocide then I would argue that the article needs to enumerate the very many scholars and their positions that verify the Genocide - including the specific points they raise and the sources/proof for such etc. What do you say to this? --THOTH 18:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

~~You are not in the know of any details on diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia I think.~~

~~Turkey has shut its borders to Armenia on the basis of Armenia insisting on its "Armenian Genocide" claim.~~
~~Armenia requests cash and territory as well as an offical recognition of Armenian Genocide.~~
~~Azerbaijan does not trade with Armenia either. So there is a dual embargo.~~
~~Iran does not trade much with anyone due to US sanctions and I do not know how much Armenia trades with Georgia.~~

~~All this should be mentioed in the diplomatic sphere of the dispute.~~

Only a minority of world nations (out of 198 UN recognised nations) regocnised Armenian genocide officialy. Most recognition does not go beyond law books either although I am well aware of the Swiss issue mentioned above. --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to drop your "Genocide denial" namecalling, it doenst contribute to this discussion. Eyewitness accounts can be quite inaccurate. In ww2 reprts of soldiers wandering around in no mans land rather beseark were not uncomon, loosing a relative/soulmate can affect people quite drasticaly esspecialy if they start loosing several of them. I am not saying we can ignore Eyewitness accounts, I am suggesting however we can approach them with some skepticism. What I want to achive here is first base exiting article on facts and then improve it with more content. Currently this artilce worths no more than 10 cents since its not based on anything. --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

~~Forget McCarthy in lead. I just dont see why are you trying to keep the lead "loaded" with pro genocide claim that at least the turkish gov is disputing? --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)~~

Third Paragraph

For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll. The events is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide.

Reason: I do not see the purpose this is serving. Peoples death does not automaticaly constitute to the UN definition of genocide. Technicaly the death of one individual could be a genocide. At what sense is it beeing compared to the Holocaust? People compare apples and phase pistols, I do not quite understand. Also details regarding it's diplomatic status is already has been discussed. The fact that several countries recognised the incident as a "genocide" is a detail that should be (and is) discussed later in the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks like original reserach to me. Our purpose here isn't to engage in such an analyses and syntheses ourselves, but depict the analyeses and syntheses of notable individuals, governments and organizations. El_C 22:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Number of people deaths alone is not genocide, but this has more to do with the death tool during the evacuation..., which was over 50%, and this according to the UN could be termed genocide. I admit this is not clear, it should be clarified, but it is obvious that the statment here was about the decision taken against the Armenians that made the majority of them lose their lives. Fadix 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Death tool? You mean method of the killing was more than 50% effective? You said there is a disagreement in the number of dead months ago. How can we talk about the percentage of deaths if we have no clue how many died? Accoring to who 50%+ died? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Then you agree the Normandy Invasion was also a genocide of Americans and Germans. I am sure both sides were shooting to kill the other "race" or "ethnicity". Since the majority of either side died. Also is the battle of Glapolli genocide against the allies and the Turks? (since both sides in total lost just about equal number of people) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a disagreement, those things are covered in the other entry covering the losses,... but it is a matter of fact that the official Ottoman figures, German, Austrian official figures all concorde and suggest an over 50% death toll. And don't forget that this is the talk page, and me mentioning over 50% is an example, and I have not written this in the article.

Comming to the Normandie invasion, this is irrelevant, where in Normandie people were sent in the desert, and where over half of a population died in desert or killing from a special organization(beside cases such as the destruction of the European Jews under the Third Reich)? Fadix 22:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Stay on topic please I dont care about Jews in this article. Normandy beach with constant gunfire was the most deadly front in WW2. Thousands died to progress a meter towards the German front. In Normady People were bombed back to the stone age by Allied and Germain Air raids as well as Allied naval bombardment. It was a street by street fight. After WW2 Europe was basicaly a number of craters. Untill Syria, Turkey does not have deserts. Armenians did not march through deserts untill they reached what today is Syria. I know the region quite well working at GAP. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You brought Normandie and tell me to stay on topic because I bring the Jewish cases. That's weird, because it seems that the comparaison of genocides would be more in topic than bringing Normandie. Oh and, while you claim knowing the region well, it seems that you ignore one important thing. Syria was PART of the Ottoman Empire, and Armenians were moved into the desert. Again, I ask you, where in Normandie, civilians were taken by force and forced to march in the desert. Where in Normandie, prisoners were released from prisons to be sent to target civilians. Most Armenians died in such conditions, your comparaison with Normandie doesn't make much sense. Fadix 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving along I still dont see what any of the red material serves. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... The region armenians passed from is less than pleasant. Assuming it was as cold as while I was around, it is quite clear that migrating armenians had great will power. This doesnt automaticaly however warrant genocide claims. During the Sarikamis campaign the majority of Turkish troops died due to cold. According to my knowlege no one is talking about a genocide against Turks for that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Del-El-Zor is not cold, never really cold, you've probably been there in another univers where it was cold. Armenians were not migrating. Sarikamis campaign targeted soldiers, who were armed and sent to fight under Envers sick megalomanic impossible plans, while in the cases of the Armenians, in was the population that was targeted. Beside, this discussion is useless. Fadix 02:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they were migrating or else what were they doing? Camping? Sarikamis campaign was an order for thousands of soldiers to march in cold with summer wear. Definately not a wise strategy but why isn't that genocide? Armed people die as well when it comes to marching over snow -30C cold. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that you apriciate the other sides view. You don't have to accept it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I still do not see what the material I propose removed serves. Half of it are details that dont belong to lead. Half of it isnt Encyclopedic at all (what kind of comparassion, by who?). --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with this statment per se. Of course there are many more "proofs" that can be called upon to substantiate the use of "genocide" etc. The statement itself is no worse or no better then much of the rest of the article - which is not necesarily an endorsement on my part - as I see the presentation as generally unclear, unorganized and unscholarly. However the statment itself is non problematic in isolation IMO. --THOTH 18:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

and often draws comparison with the Holocaust means nothing intelligable. So you suggest what Armenians were gassed to death? What kind of comparasion and what purpose does this serve in lead at all? Are western sources more reputable than eastern northern and soulthern sources? It implies the "west" bias. Which should be established better and explained LATER in the article. Lets see these western sources in action, not in lead. --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

edit point

The discussion is over. You have not changed, not even a bit. Fadix 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Kawaii! Instead of ordering me around can you mature please? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

why?

There are a number of intelligent questions that in my opinion requires attention. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would Turks waiste resources to massacre Armenians by forcing them to migrate. People dwill not go on a joirney by force unless you escort them. I don't see any credible source claiming Armenians matched through the montains of anatolia unguarded. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Why did they stop? Surely there were some Armenians alive left in the region (in the millions) and Turks were completely in control of the Eastern front after the Russian Revolution (and russians pulled out completely). Turkish soldiers were in control of a large reagion reaching Azerbaijan, including Armenia of course. Why not finish the job? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does Armenia decline to open its archives? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does no one mention the oppressive ASALA exterminationg the opposite pov. The commander in charge of the Armenian relocation was murdered without a trial. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
24 April 2004. Michigan State University, Armenian Genocide comemoration, sponsored by the Armenian Lobby. I was a part of it. I listened to the opposing views with an open mind in a civilised tone. Everyone knew about the Armenian Genocide, and how "barbaric Turks" are and how "Horrible Turkey" is (though few people can locate Turkey/Armenia on a map). It was grafitied to every sidewalk on campus, even on urinals. I can tell more people knew about this "Armenian Genocide" on campus then the Holocaust. Such extreme mesures are not taken by Jews surviving the Holocaust, the worst case of Mass murder in human history as far as I know. Why are armenians trying to generate a public opinion among Americans? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What purpose does this diatribe serve? These questions go beyond the scope of Wikipedia to answer in isolation, in so far as it remains ungrounded and unreferenced in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Turn to the shcolarship, collect, synthesize, and present your findings. Thus far, they are insufficient due to their anectodal, unsourced nature. El_C 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You can understand now my desperation. While he makes claims after the other, I have to answer back by documentations, works, research etc..., and then, he drags me in a worthless discussion that has nothing to do with the article at hand. And above all, he pathologicaly lies.(one example among many, historians being killed by ASALA) I just hope that this time, the Arbcom will take the necessary decision so that I can finaly not have him disturbing the process of imporvement of the article. Fadix 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Legaly (UN) we can only talk about genocide if Turks intended to kill the armenians, rather than the official claim of relocation. Why bother "relocating" them when there are much more effective methods of killing? --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
If Turks indeed wanted to massacre the Armenians, why did they stop. After a significant portion of Armenians "migrated" there were still a number of Armenians that stayed where they are. They were under ottoman rule for at least a brief period of time. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
ASALA blew up quite a number of people. Some being historians agreeing to the Turkish thesis. It was basicaly suicide for a historian in US, Europe, or elsewhere to disagree with the armenian thesis. Death threats were common. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The Armenian lobing rises the question on how neutral western sources? Surely at least some were affected by the not so neutral comemorations? --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of the questions? I am merely pointing out on certain things that rises the idea that Turkish thesis could be the true story and hence warants mention in the article instead of an ovewhelming opoosing POV. Article is designed to prove the Armenian Genocide and sheds little light to the path Armenians had taken for example, or any other details. If I had a map I would upload. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered in the article or even here but it rises an interesting point I think. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I already made 3 suggestions. 1 sourced (Armenian Relocation thing), 2 asking for sources or request to move material to be discussed later. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been shown that the methods employed to exterminate Armenians - consisting to a great degree of forced migration leading to starvation - was both quite efficient as well as lending itself to political cover - ie the claim of deportation/relocation and associated justifications could be used as a pretext to hide the intent etc (this largely failed BTW - except among guilible Turks and other true believers in the great lie etc. And CoolCat asks why did they stop with the job incomplete? My response - where now is the nation of Armenia in Anatolia? Where is the presence of the vibrant Armenian people in the lands inhabited by them for thousands of years? (also Coolcat is claiming that millions of Armenians were in this area after the Genocide - funny - as most Genocide deniers [falsely] claim there were barely one million Armenians in Anatolia to begin with....And I fail to see the validity of any of your other points here (ASALA and the rest...). You talk about so-called death threats against those opposing the claim of Genocide - I respond - just because one Turk attempted to kill the Pope does it make all Turks pope-killers? I also think that the recent issue of Turkey prosecuting those who have spoken out regarding the genocide in Turkey is far more relevant. Here we have a nation denying its history and internally enforcing such false belief through laws restricting freedom of speech while at the same time such a nation is sponsoring academics with preconditions of acceptance of the official history as promulgated by Turkey - pathetic. This shameful record must be highlighted and exposed in Wikipedia for the casual reader to truly understand what is going on here and so that a proper understanding of the degree of denial and the fact that this is essentially an offical government sponsored version of Holocaust denial applied to the Armenian Genocide. --THOTH 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV suggests "genocide denialism" or whatever name-calling you prefer is a valid pov. --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Genocide denialism is just as valid as a POV as Holocaust denialism - there is no difference - only that in the case of the Armenian Genocide the Government (and people) that is the sucessor to those responsible for the criminal acts has never been fully called to task in the international arena and the (Turkish) Government and society is lacking in maturity and modernity and believes that they can continue to attempt to rerite history in a way that perpetuates false hyper-nationalistic and racist nation building myths at the expense of truth. They will only suceed in perpetuation of this Genocide if those of us who know the truth allow their falsities and distortions to remain unchallenged and if we fail in propoerly and thouroughly explaining the history and events so that the ignorant cannot be fooled by the lies this government and its nationalistic suppports attempt to perpetuate. --THOTH 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

--THOTH 21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)==Coolcat recent change==

I have reverted Coolcat change, because relocation is not an alternative, and is not used as alternative for the term Armenian genocide. It is entirly a different position. It is like adding in the entry Quantum Mechanic, Super String as an alternative term for the words Quantum Mechanic. I have tried to explain him those things, but he would not listen. Relocation is not inclusive and is another thesis, another interpretation, this entry is about the position called Armenian genocide, and also includes its critics, for this reason the term "Armenian relocation" can not be used as alternative term. Fadix 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Who uses "Relocation" as an alternative term? Please cite your sources, Coolcat. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, some (several being govermental) sites, although I do not care about the contents of these sites they do reference to an armenian relocation:

www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/ottoman_armenian.htm
www.kulturturizm.gov.tr/portal/default_en.asp%3Fbelgeno%3D3371
www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/relocation/return.html
www.diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp%3Fid%3D1250
www.armenianreality.com/articles/what_was_the_demographic.htm
www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php%3Fid%3D61
www.tallarmeniantale.com/relocation.htm
www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/myth/relocation.html
www.turkishembassy.org/governmentpolitics/issuesarmenian.htm
www.armenocide.am/genocide.htm
www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php%3Fid%3D62 Halaçoğlu, Yusuf, "Realities Behind the Relocation", in Ataöv, Türkkaya (ed.), The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period, (Ankara: The Turkish Historical Society, 2001), pp. 109-142. (a book)

--Cool Cat ^Talk 15:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Officaly Armenians were relocating, in the process many died (rising the question "was this a Genocide?"). --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Those articles of course contradict Coolcat thesis that the term Armenian relocation is an alternative to the word Armenian genocide.

Let examine Coolcat “sources.”

What Coolcat did was to search “Armenian relocation” and then, finding those, he didn’t bothered reading what he found. Using the same logic, I can for instance search “Super String” and finding that, I would claim that I have found an alternative term to what is called Quantum Mechanic, which of course is ridiculous.

The first link, present the official Turkish government translation of Ottoman said archives(There are records in the German archives that show some of them to be manipulated, but that is another story for now). As I said previously, the official Turkish government translation of the word that Halacoglu translate as relocation, is deportation. The link Coolcat present is in fact what I have been saying… one can search on that page, the word “deportation” and he will see that the large majority of the translations were “deportation,” in fact, as I said, the term itself means forced evacuation, and has a second definition which means destroying the enemy by way of kicking them out. The etymology is Arabic, and I have proposed to Coolcat to ask an Arabic speaking about this, and he will see that they will confirm it.

Coolcat in fact, did not pay attention to what was in this link, let refer to the No. 71 document that those in charge of the archives published by mistake without paying attention that it was about the special organization and their order to kill Armenians. If Coolcat has the official Volume published in Ankara in 1994, titled: “Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler” it is on p. 69. But as I am sure that he does not have the volume itself, let refer to the one that is in the first link he provides.

http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/2b_071.htm

It is a matter of fact, that all the translation of the Ottoman Turkish is not presented there.

Let post the full translation.

“It has recently been reported that massacres of Armenians and Christians without distinction as to sect have been organized within the province, and that in Mardin, for example, some seven hundred people from among the Armenians and other Christian inhabitants were recently taken outside of the city at night and, with due authorization, slaughtered like sheep by those individuals who had been brought from Diyarbakir, and that the total of those killed to date in these massacres is estimated at two thousand persons, and that there are fears that, if a speedy and definite end is not put to this, then the Muslim inhabitants of neighboring provinces will rise up and engage in a general slaughter of Christians. As it is not appropriate that the disciplinary and administrative measures adopted with regard to the Armenians be extended to the other Christians, [this situation] will have a very negative efect on public opinion; consequently, [it is directed that] such practices which threaten the lives of Christians indiscriminately [must] be stopped immediately and a report of the situation be provided.”

This is what the Turkish historian Halil Berktay says about this particular record.

“…he isn't calling for an end to what is being done to the Armenians, but rather calling for massacres against other Christians to be prevented. In the first sentence, he explains, and even reminds, that massacres have been organized. He states that, in the most recent incidents in Mardin, some 700 Armenians and other Christians have been slaughtered `like sheep', and that thus a total of 2 thousand people have been killed. He refers to those doing the killing as `the people who were earlier transferred from Diyarbakir'; if this is not a reference to the `special organization' I cited in the interview published on 9 October, what is it? He states as well the fear that the Muslim population in neighboring provinces will rise up and slaughter all the Christians. He notes this not as a mere claim, but rather as actual information: he says that `it has been reported'. Let's look at the second sentence: He says that the `disciplinary and administrative measures' applied to the Armenians are not appropriate for application to other Christians, and should be halted immediately. Does he say `Don't kill the Armenians either'? No, he doesn't say this. Does he say that `We only ordered deportations; what are these massacres?'? He says nothing of the sort. Only, the word `katliam' (`massacre') repeated several times in the first sentence becomes `Ermeniler hakkinda ittihaz edilen tedabir - i inzibatiye ve siyasiye' (`the disciplinary and administrative measures adopted with regard to the Armenians') in the second sentence.” Those in charge of the archives, when they have decided to include this in the volume, knew that people that would read it would think that this record will show that the Ottoman government was taking measures to protect the Armenians. But again, it has been established during the Court Martial, that the Ottoman government was using vague terms such as “measures” to mean extermination, the term deportation was even equated with the term extermination. Also, those in charge, thought that people that will read this statement, will not understand who were those brought for the purposes of the massacres, if they did not knew anything about the special organization.

Also, the records in the first link Coolcat present are known to have been altered, and I have given one example of such cases, when for the same record of 90%-10% population quota, the German transcription placed the 90% to be destroyed, while the version in the Ankara volume, it is replaced by “deportation.”

The second link, Coolcat present, is the “research” of Halacoglu, in which, it is claimed that only 400 thousand Armenians were moved, and that only 50 thousand died. Still, this in no way show us that Armenian relocation is an alternative for the word Armenian genocide, but rather that the movement of population is translated by Halacoglu as relocation and not deportation.

The third link, is again a “research” by Halacoglu, as the number of Armenians returning back, it does not show, that “Armenian relocation” is an alternative term for the words “Armenian genocide.”

The forth link, is a known racist website, and even there, the link Coolcat present, does not show that the term “Armenian relocation” is used as a synonym for the thesis called “Armenian genocide.” As I said, it is a thesis in itself, and could maybe have its own entry.

I will even not bother opening the website armenianreality.com, it is a racist website and is far from being credible, for no matter what they claim. The choices of the domain name itself show us how screwed up are those that have build it. Does anyone see me using sites with names like turkishlies.com, Turkishreality.com ?

The fifth link, I already answered, the sixth, doesn’t still present any statements, that “Armenian relocation” is a synonym to call the theses “Armenian genocide,” the seventh neither. Number 8. shows the quite opposite, and Number 9, is again Halacoglu theses, and does not show the term being used to mean “Armenian genocide.”

To conclude, as I have shown, the official Turkish translation, used in their own Volume, is deportation, even if it was relocation, still, wanting that to be an alternative word, is to misunderstand why alternative words are used. “Armenian relocation” is a thesis alone, which can have its entry… which can start by something such: “It is a thesis that propose that Armenians were removed to be resettled, rather than being deported or forcibly evacuated, this position is maintained by some Turkish scholars, etc.” Fadix 18:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So no soul on earth uses "Armenian Relocation"? I just cited a book title (Realities Behind the Relocation). Armenians were sent to another ottoman terriory, yes? They moved from poit A to B yes? What is the problem? Oh and I ask you to summerise your cases. No one will read a post 8kb long. --Cool Cat ^Talk 18:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So as various people cite Super String..., you fail to understand again. The entry is about what is called the Armenian genocide, it is about the thesis that is called Armenian genocide and its critics, the thesis called "Armenian relocation" is not inclusive of everything the thesis that is called Armenian genocide includes. It CAN NOT be used as alternative for this same reason. You seem to understand pretty well computer science, which also shows that you are able of some abstract thinking, why don't you use abstract thinking to at LEAT, trying to understand what the others say, I am not asking you to understand, but only TRYING to understand. I do not oppose the creation(of an article) of the position called "Armenian relocation" ..., but it is obvious, very obvious, that the term Armenian relocation can not be used as alternative for this thesis, the article is about. And I repeat, it is like adding Super string as a synonym for the word Quantum Mechanic... Super String has its own entry, and is a position that exist, but this would not justify the uses of that term as a synonym or alternative word for the words Quantum Mechanic. Now, before answering, just TRY understanding what I say, for onces, just accept the possibility that maybe I am not opposing you because it is you that is making the proposition or that I am refusing because of my own POV. Fadix 18:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose that Coolcat and others who believe (in the fairy tales) that he does open a new Wikipedia section entitled "the Armenian relocation" - perhaps somewhere between the section on the Brothers Grim and the one concerning Mother Hubbard. I expect that we might also see there a section submitted by David Irving concerning the progressive civil rights laws of the Third Reich and perhaps a ethnogrophy entry concerning "Mountain Turks" (and their first class treatment as citizens of Turkey...)....in the meantime let us post factually in the section correctly and accuratly titled - "The Armenian Genocide".....--THOTH 20:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, I don't think a new article titled Armenian deportation/relocation is that a bad idea. It could cover evacuation of the Armenians as presenting the different positions about the evacuation, excluding the massacres etc. Fadix 23:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix? Is that you Fadix? What Armenian deportation/relocation? I assume(d) that you are aware that the "deportation" orders and sunsequant justifications and untruthful explanations were mearly a cover for Genocide. Are you forgeting Ackam's analysis - where he references the fact that no provisions were provided for any type of relocation/deporation - that the lack of such and the conduct of the Turkish Gendarmes and Special Organization in herding the convoys through desolate reagions and encouraging and participating in their depravation is proof enough of intent....And what sort of "deportation/relocation" of a population includes only the women, children and elderly? What about the men? Aren't men part of the population - and wouldn't one expect that men would be neccesary and included if there were some intent to actually move a population? These facts, as well as the confirmed existance and admissions regarding secret orders and the intent of the "deportation" (including the fact that those of Western Anatolia were also "deported" etc) are further proof of the fallacy of any claim that there was in fact a "relocation" - that there was any intent other then slaughter and annhiliation of the Armenian people/population/nation. Need I also remind reader of the thousands of eyewitness - offical government, missionary, survivor and otherwise testimony that describes countless acts of slaughter and deprivation - the same over and over and over - and the pattern of Ottoman government action that demonstrates clear intent. This was a barbaric Genocide consiting of massacres and killings of innocents coldly enacted and conducted for political purposes and I am sick and tired of attempts by the Turkish Government and their various supporters to attemtp to whitewash these crimes. And those of us who know and understand these facts should not tolerate these shameful efforts to deny the facts and this Wikipedia article needs to be strengthened and not diluted and the planning and enactment and subsequant and continuing denial of these crimes needs to be explained and thoroughly illustrated. The current article is both insuficiant in this regard and is severely comprimised by wishy washy and unclear text. Facts are facts - the support exists - the denial is thoroughly discredited - and this needs to be presented as such. Likewise the history leading up to the Genocide and the events following require much better presentation to allow the reader who is unfamiliar with tis history to properly understand the answers to the questions of why - in addition to understanding the how - and ultimatly of course it needs to clearly present (comitted by) who. --THOTH 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I think you did not understand me and also think you still have difficulty to understand how exactly Wikipedia works. In Wikipedia there are entries about creationist science, there are entries about various things which are dubvious at best. Wikipedia present positions, not what the truth is. "Armenian deportation/relocation" would be an article about the movement of Armenians, this does not meant that it will deny the Armenian genocide, it just will present such a position and its critics. Somethins such: "The Armenian deportation is the term used to define the evacuation of the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire. Some Turkish scholar prefer to use the term "relocation" claiming that deportation means evacuation outside a country or state, while according to them Armenians were not evacuated outside, but rather inside the Empire. The term relocated is also used by those scholars often as synonym for the word resetled, because most of those that us this term don't accept that Armeninians were victims of genocide, even though, most scholars affirm the contrary etc..." This is the type of article that will be developped. And I repeat, this has nothing to do with denying, or permitting some to deny the Armenian genocide. If someone search "Armenian relocation" he should know for what this term is used, and who support such theses and who don't etc. Fadix 15:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure Fadix - it would be appropriate to be presented/discussed in a section entitled: "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". To present it any other way would be actively promoting falsehood. Is this Wiki? --THOTH 17:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not expect me or anyone to recognise the incident as a "Genocide", just like no one should be expected to recognise it as a "Relocation". The article should present claims from various scholars explicitly stating WHO says what. This is a historic article with no to little of the material with any basis. I see NO primary sources. Armenian childeren got gassed? Who says so? The burdon of proof falls on your side. I should be able to access any claim you make here without any difficulty. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Expecting people to be "brainwahsed" with repeating "Before the Genocide", "After the genocide", "During the genocide" is like me declaring PKK terrorist and forcing it. Since wikipedia does not determine if PKK is terrorist or not (and pkk is accepted as a terrorist organisation more widely than Armenian Genocide is recognised as "Genocide"). --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Relocation is a valid term to refer to the incident weather you like it or not. I cited a book with it's title. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Also my suggestions earlier on stays I will work on that extent because I want badly to improve the article quality here. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is imaterial whether or not you recognize anything. The fact that it is well documented that Lemkin coined the term precisely to describe what occured to the Armenians makes use of the term genocide entirely legitimate - in addition to it clearly meeting all other stated criteria for genocide - UN definitions and optherwise. So you have no point here except as a troll who is trying to disrupt things and obscure the truth based on a very specific agenda. Again - the comparisons to those who deny the Holocaust are most appropriate here. There is more then sufficient evidence - eyewitness - official, unofficial, confessions, trial verdicts and so and and so forth that paint the picture of what occured most clearly. That there exists a position that seeks to deny the truth of what occured - that this position is solely held by the Government of Turkey, variuous Turksih nationals, and researchers that are directly sponsored by the Turkish Government - the most prominent by a Government institution (Turkish Historical Society) founded specifically to bolster an historic perspective designed to justify pre-concieved historagraphy supporting a propogandistic political position concerning the Turkish State and Turkish history - real and imagined - is also fact and needs to be fully explained in this or a related article. These are all pertinent circumstances surounding the Armenian Genocide - the truth of it - its extreme level of documentation from a mirad of sources - and the persistent political campaign of denial - including such efforts as yours on this very site. In the meantime I concur with the suggestion that a comprehensive listing of scholars and scholarly organizations with a position concerning the Armenian Genocide should be itemized.--THOTH 21:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I am tired of this, please do not engage in a long debate with Coolcat, it is unconstructive, and he'll only tell you how neutral he is etc. When the fact is that both of you still don't get what NPOV is(the closest Coolcat will come to, is to say you to do things that he himself doesn't do), but at least you do not harm Wikipedia because you do not edit the article but rather discuss. For your comment regarding "Turkish government denial." There can an article about this, since such position exist. See Wikipedia as a huge book, in which you can search about things, regardless of truth. Now please, stop criticizing the article and present clear alternatives, and I will neutralize your propositions. But consider that in some way or another, what is already in this article should be included with your proposition, in some way or another. Something I give you is that the articles English quality is not the best thing.

Present your propositions here, and we will discuss about them. Discuss them NOT with Coolcat but to others, present them here in the talk page. Fadix 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The partial edit

I reverted the first change made by the new member, because it was against the principle that Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, but what is said about the event. Fadix 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid reverts and discuss matters in talk no mather how evil or immoral peoples edits are. Agressive reverting alienates users from wikipedia which damages thw wiki community, if you want to remove something, instead comment it out. If someone wants to remove something restore and comment it out and discuss so we can reach a concensus. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Two things, either you did not read my partial revert, or either you are using this as way to attempt my credibility. Let this to be known for other users. My rv. had no words removed, in fact, it had added words which were deleted. "what is called" was deleted, and I added it back, because I am trying to maintain the Armenian genocide article as neutral as possible so that people like Coolcat don't come here crying about how unfair the article is. Also, the edit of the other user, was against Coolcat position, which would have resulted most certainly with Coolcat reverting it himself, but since I did it, he used the occasion to tell me to stop reverting. Fadix 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I am not aware on exaclty what you have reverted, I am not watching your edits. I am just suggesting try to evade reverts, regardless of content change. It only serves to irritate, and annoy people although I dont bellieve that being your intention. I kindly ask you try harder not to revert. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I DID never really engage in a revert war, I have never been blocked for 3RR, if my memory serves me well, I think you on the other hand have been blocked not once, not twice by THREE times under the 3RR rule. Fadix 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have checked the change, I am glad we are underway again but I please ask you to drop phrases such as "crying about how" we will have a more satisfying and productive discussion. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "productive discussion" used by you, would be an oxymoron. And that you are glad or no, doesn't change a thing, because I said, people like Coolcat, and not Coolcat, so this rv. was not made for you, you are the last of my preocupations. ~~

Let's go on. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide

So what do you suggest we do with the second paragraph as it is quite messy. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ~

There is no let's go on, I told you, I will not discuss the matter with you. Fadix 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To have productive and controlled article creation or modification all the users should aggree on the same terms and conditions. If some users edit article without discussion, when most of users are aggred that every change should be discussed, those undiscussed changes should be reverted back (rejected) unconditionally. Rules should work equally for all the users without exceptions. So, Fadix has done clearly right thing which should be appreciated, especially because of his revert contradicts to his position. We should follow his example. --Gvorl 14:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ex suggestion revised

Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide.

For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll. The events is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide.

Several facts in connection with the incident are a matter of ongoing dispute among scholars as well as beeng a diplomatic dispute between Armenia, and Turkey, as well as other parts of the international community) dispute. Although there is a level of agreement in the events leading to the incident, several scholars, as well as the Turkish government rejects the classification "genocide", and argue that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I as it is observed elsewhere in Europe as well. Despite this thesis, a significant portion of scholars follow the theisis referencing the incident as a genocide.

I realise you do not want such a change, what alternative do you suggest? I have coppied the actual suggestion from the degraded conversation, cleaner start. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling the Armenian Genocide an "incident" is akin to calling WWII an incident. This is entirely incorrect. An "incident" is a specific singularity - like smashing a plane into a building. The enactment of the Armenian Genocide - the various wide ranging plans, actions, deceptions and such taken by the CUP, Ottoman Governemnt officials and the current government of Turkey itself and it s supportors such as yourself - causing the continuous great suffering and abuse and untimely and often gruesome death experienced by hundreds of thousands of Armenians - by nearly all Armenians in Anatolia - those who survived and those who died and were killed etc - cannot be cheapened by calling such a mere "incident". And neather can you cheapen the memory of such criminal and vicious actions for the decendents of those Armenian who survived such times and persevered in the face of the brutal and criminal Ottoman Government campaign to eliminate them.

Likewise it is an entirely incorrect assertion that the "dispute" is between Armenia and Turkey. First it is not so much a "dispute" as an attempt to revise the historical record along false and misleading lines to obscure the true history and the complicity of the Turkish government and people in these shamful acts. And this effort is being entirely undertaken by the Government of Turkey and (so-called) scholars that are in its pay and/or otherwise beholden to it. It is important that any mention of a "dispute" make these fact most clear. It also needs to be made most clear the amount of overwhelming support for the belief/contention or what have you among actual scholars and specifically Genocide scholars, Holocaust scholars, and historians in general that fully accepts the fact of the Armenian Genocide as such (and the CUP/Ottoman Turkish government as instigators responsible for such and the same and the Turkish and Kurdish people of the time as responsible for carrying out the actual acts of such) and again it needs to be made very clear that the word "genocide" itself has largely come about as a descriptor for precisely the series of actions, events and the result of the CUP/Ottoman Turkish campaign which was undertaken to and largely succeeded in its objectives to eliminate Armenians, Armenian presence, Armenian culture from Anatolia (and to plunder the assets of such people). The evidence of this planning - of the intentions - of the methodoloogy and of the result has beeen thoroughly and painstakingly documented and has been verifyied by accepted scholarship that is not serioulsy questioned by serious and objective scholars in any real sense - and the attempts to deny such - on the part of the current government of Turkey and those Turkish and non-Turkish (yet beholden to the Government of Turkey) academics to deny such evidence - such facts - such real history - is a most shamful and deceptive attempt to promote lies over truth and it constitutes a series of acts that themselves are properly characterized as part of the Genocide itself - that what they - and you - are attempting to do - is in fact a perpetuation of the Armenian Genocide. These facts need to be made clear in this presentation - not your weasel words that do nothing but expose the corruption of your thought and the uglyness of what you are attempting here in this article. --THOTH 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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 [24]. 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)

LOL @ the above comment. Why don't they leave it to historians (holocaust deniers) to deny it for them instead of using their silly primary evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gruder (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I possibly won't debate or contribute to the article much. And I don't care much what you call hundreds of thousands civilians death since it is a great loss and tragedy already. As long as I know estimated realistic numbers of Armenian casualties were at least 300.000 and might be 500.000 which means a terrible massacre even if it is death by cold in winter, hunger or bullet. Rest are possibly forced conversions or such. The transportation system were bad it is true lots of Turkish people died on ships while exchange through Greece in later years too, during war food were not plenty, it was winter, armenians didn't protected well, ... but again that all don't justify such hundreds of thousands citizens' "death march" intentionally-unintentionally or half-intentionally. On the other hand, though it doesn't justify for such a big casualty or forced deportations, Armenian gangs also massacred a huge number of Turkish-Kurdish civilians in the area which is another undeniable fact. Article seems not depicting such events at least by a quick check if I am not mistaken. If I missed such a section just point it out for me. If the article not contains such balancing info it cannot be considered as an WP:NPOV article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The first who opened a sensless talk I shall remind:

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Armenian genocide/Archive 5. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Armenian genocide/Archive 5 at the Reference desk.

BTW, as examples and some reasoning:

1. The Armenians in the west and everywhere were effected. For instance the 1915 the beheaded Armenian Elite wasn't living in the East only but mainly in Constantinople.

2. The motivation is a thing to be long discussed and can't be proven as, for instance, can't be explained for sure what the real motivation of the Holocaust, as it's obvious, that the understanding of "wrong race" is total crap, was. Your request to have it in the article seems to aim at undermining it's neutrality and push for POVs to dominate with all future consequences for the article.

3. You have already mentioned the reason of hatred yourself so what else do you want to know? Go to the books and links if u wish to know more of possible reasons, like economy etc. You will surely find interesting info for yourself.

But once again, for those who ignore the warnings, this is not a forum to discuss the Genocide!

Aregakn (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a place to discuss the inaccuracies of an article. Even if it's not why are you discussing it yourself? Are you incapable of understanding your own arguments?

1) The Armenian population of the Western provinces were in fact unaffected which numbered around 300 thousand. Only a fraction of these, less than 3 thousand who were accused to be conspiring against the state, were arrested.

2) You talk of neutrality and POV when the article uses forged documents as if they were real to support the genocide claim. At least have the decency of not talking about neutrality or POV if you're going to be so hypocritical.

You talk so much for someone claiming that this place is not a forum. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my first time adding to a forum, so apologies if I'm going about it incorrectly. This is a response to the comment up above about Talaat Pasha not being involved. In an interview with a journalist sympathetic with the Turkish government, Enver Pasha (not Talaat, that is true, but I doubt one was involved without the other, and Enver uses "we") replied to a question that implied he had little to do with the planning of the massacre. "You are greatly mistaken," he said. "We have this country absolutely under control. I have no desire to shift the blame on our underling and I am entirely willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.27.69 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to note for you, TheDarkLordSeth, that your comments about my capabilities and "how much I talk" are insults and that I hope this will be the first and the last time as well as I am expecting apologies and constructive dialogue instead of attacks. Hope this is clear! Aregakn (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it an insult as much as you want as it would only be a pathetic attempt of an argument. If you have any concrete thing to say, say it. If you don't then you can't simply call other peoples criticism of your posts as an insult. If you have anything sound to say than that would be a constructive dialogue. At first you say and even put a sign about how it's not a place to discuss and then continue to be a part of the discussion. I have every right to question your abilities as you can't even realize the meaning of the sign you put yourself. Please refrain yourself from making such foul comments in the future. Consider yourself warned, if you want. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I consider them insults. I said thy ARE insults and there cannot be a 2nd thought about it as it is obvious. If you continue insulting, attacking and negatively comenting the editors I'd suggest you to read more of the rules.

No, you do not have a single right to comment any of the users in such way and if you do it is even bad for you, as you shall not be considered somebody serious to make discussions with. If you wish to be perceived seriously you shall be considered as such by your value-creating actions and not insults. Aregakn (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a case of extreme falsification

Armenian crimes conducted during the Russia occupation of Eastern Turkey and the mass extermination of the local Muslim and Turkish population is not mentioned with a single word. Strange that people claiming to have been victims of genocide have colonies of 8 million Armenians around the world where according to their theories there should not be a singe Armenian left after 1915.Hittit (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually an article from The Nation suggests that when you add all the incidents you have 35 million Armenians killed. [25] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The total population of the Ottoman Empire in 1897 was 19,050,307 (History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2 By Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel K. Shaw pp.240). Armenians numbered just 1 million in 1987, in 1906 it stood at 1,1 million and in 1914 at 1,3 million. By this any suggestion or insinuation of the killing of 2 000 000 Armenians in Ottoman Turkey is not just a lie but shear impossibility. Not did only the population not decline but it in increased +30% in under 20 years. This would hardly be the effect of mass killings.

Assuming that 1,3 million were killed (virtually all exterminated in 1915) would make it impossible to have 8 million Armenians today, even if 500 000 were killed you could not have 8 million Armenians today since this would mean that the Armenian rate of population increase would surpass the population increase of any nation known today on the face of the earth.Hittit (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you have no idea of Armenian history, so don't talk. There were Armenians living in the RUSSIAN Empire, too -- part of historical Armenia at the time was under Russian rule. The first republic of Armenia had 800,000 Armenians, about 300,000 of whom were from the other side of the border. And yes, Armenian under the Soviet Union experienced a rapid population growth, as did the survivors in the rest of the Middle East. Some psychologists think that the trauma of the Genocide prompted them to reproduce to make up for their lost ones. Serouj (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you would like very much so if there was no talk or research on the issue. The sheer lunacy of these genocide claims requires rigorous investigation and provision of concrete evidence. You cannot build a genocide case based on “your word” or what your senile grand mother told or an alleged “traumatic” reproduction frenzy achieving an over 1000% population growth. Are you now saying that fragments of Armenians living in Russia were the main reproduction catapult to achieve the current figure of app. 8 million? How do you explain that 6 out 8 million Armenians live outside Russia and thus are the very descendants of Ottoman Armenians? achieving 6 million would be the normal population growth comparing to other former Ottoman colonies such as Bulgaria and Greece only if the base figure is 1,5 million (or higher) any less than this would suggest long term hormonal treatment to substantially increase Armenian female fertility and capability to bear children. Furthermore, not to mention that pictures of alleged Armenian refugees have also turned out to be actually fleeing Muslims, fabrication of documentation is also more the rule than the exception e.g.., virtually no validated Ottoman documentation (origins if any such later produced are in high doubt) of attempted and intended extermination. Having in mind that Ottoman Archives contains over 11 000 documents on the issue “genocide” researchers have not bother to make any examination of these. Armenian and Russia keep closed their own archives on the subject; most reports of allegations are based on Christian Missionaries highly operational in the area during WW1 or 3rd party accounts as these were in the same fashion instrumental for the propaganda war prior to the Turco-Russian War 1877-1878. Classic “weapons of mass-destruction” scenario paving the way of any major war. Not much has changed in terms of military propaganda since the 19th century.Hittit (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Serouj (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all off-topic and should be removed. I will remove it unless I see valid objections. Meowy 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion regarding the inaccuracy of this article thus in-topic. I will report you if you erase it as you're simply trying to censor this article according to your own beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. You and hittite are using this talk page as a platform for you to pursue your discredited agenda (an agenda that has been explored here and discredited here many times in the past) and to post OR and off-topic "Armenian crimes" comments. Talk pages are intended for discussion aimed at improving specific points in the article. They are not platforms for personal essays or personalised rants. This thread has no useful purpose in improving the article. Meowy 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is laughable. You claim that their claim is personal agenda and they try to push it here, yet they can prove that some documents used in this article are forgeries. Whats up with that? And stop feeding the trolls? What's that? Avoiding a discussion because it becomes to hard to handle? --90.29.127.95 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not using any kind of agenda and it haven't been discredited. I'm pointing out factual errors in this article. The article even uses documents that are proven to be forgeries. If that's your sense of credibility, accuracy and informing then it's actually you who is trying to push his agenda and I need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only did the Armenian population increase in Ottoman Turkey between 1887 and 1914 with 30% but some Turkish born Armenians such Calouste Gulbenkian made an immense fortune ripping-off the Ottoman Government in the very years Armenians are claimed to have been mass killed.Hittit (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Calouste Gulbenkian got his 5 per cent from the consortium of European Oil Companies and not from the Turkish government (and for good reason, he earned it). Claiming that he ripped-off the Ottoman government is wishful thinking. Nobody is "claiming" that there were mass killings. The mass killings happened and are well documented by far more scholars than claim or allege otherwise. Turkey's mass killings of Christians were not isolated to the First World War either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Casulties

Another factual error in this article is that the article claims without citation that the Turkish state claims that the casualties were around 300 thousand which is once again wrong. The Turkish state claims that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians have died. [26] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

American Recognition

I heard on the news that the United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as an actual genocide, causing Turkey to remove their ambassador. It was never repeated. Is it actually true that the United States recognized the genocide and is it worth mentioning on the article? 71.129.63.227 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The cross-party U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs has just approved a resolution that calls the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I a genocide, and has recommended that the resolution be passed by the entire House of Congress. Given that President Obama before his election called the Armenian Genocide a genocide, and given that he seems to be resorting to playing the do-the-right-thing moral-high-ground card for certain other legislation, it is politically difficult for him to oppose this resolution - so it has a better than normal chance of passing. That is the reason for the recent flood of propagandistic postings onto this talk page. Just as the propaganda has no place on this talk page, I think mention of the resolution has doubtful place in the article. This already overly-long and all-but-unusable article is about the Armenian Genocide, not about resolutions that commemorate it. It should have a mention in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide though - the only reason the resolution is notable (and the main reason it exists at all) is because of Turkish opposition to it and the word genocide. Meowy 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Meowy, please keep your own propaganda and lies to yourself. It's completely pathetic of you to call us propagandists. Just show how butt-hurt you get when confronted by your own lies. Please refrain yourself from acting so pathetic in the future. On the bill issue, Obama issued a statement for the House not to accept it. It's not the first time that it was accepted, I think. It simply has zero meaning as it doesn't mean a bit that the United States have accepted the genocide claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened is that a US Congressional panel ruled that it was a genocide. In reaction, the Turkish government, "recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and says it is considering other responses."[27] The White House, however, has vowed to prevent the issue being the subject of a full Congressional vote.[28] Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting study

I am not interested in the details here, but given what the news says, I wonder what the Turkish Wikipedia version of this page is like. I wonder how it differs from the English (and if there is an Armenian) version. I don't read Turkish and can not be bothered to run the page through Google translate, but if someone with high emotions (say like 4,000 people out there) would like to translate that and comment on the differences it wll make an interesting study in "cross cultural Wikipedia" and may be the beginning of a new field. Another example would be to compare the Japanese and Korean versions of specific periods in history. Then Wikipages will begin to make history by starting a new field. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish page is more neutral on the subject as it doesn't take any side. It simply shows the views of the different sides and gives sources from both sides without reaching a conclusion as it should be. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what neutral means these days, but the Turkish version does seem to use the term genocide as well. However, looking across French, German, Spanish and Italian versions will also make an interesting comparison. The German version does not include "a single photo" of a person, dead or alive, and just uses maps. It does, however discuss details. The Spanish version, on the other hand starts with dramatic photos of dying children, and its content is similar to the French, English and Italian versions. The Russian version has only one photo, and seems brief - but I do not read Russian. By the way, the Turkish version reproduces the July 16 Telegram twice. I am not sure why it needs it twice. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to me an article is not neutral if it uses forged evidence as if they were real to support an argument, as in this English version. The amount of content on the articles depends on how many Armenians involved in editing. As you can see from the English version it's dominated by Armenians and they hardly let any edit that go against their own arguments. The question is should Wikipedia really take a side in such articles and not care to ignore or twist the other side of the argument? We can of course not expect every version article to be identical to each other. I'm not sure what you mean by the Russian version but it has multiple pictures with a not that short of an article. Check it here: [29] The reproduction of the telegram picture is most likely to be due to different people editing. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You should do that analysis on the Jewish Holocaust before attempting to do it on the Armenian Genocide. I just would like to see how far you get with it. We appear to be forever pussyfooting around the sensibilities of Germans and Turks. Why do the victims have to pussyfoot? btw I am not Armenian but my entire family has been persecuted by Germans and Turks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an entire book collection that says otherwise and all from independent sources. Judging by the number of denialists I am going to need it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Denialists? The correct term is exposing the truth, this so called genocide is nothing more than the Weapons of Mass Destruction for which the evidence was presented in the UN and used as a pretext to attack Iraq. I bet in 20 years time when an American shoolchild is asked why did the US attack Iraq the answer would be because Iraq had WMD and was going to use them. Here we are almoust 100 years after the Allied attack agains Turkey during the WWI and we are still debating war propaganda.Hittit (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, I would recommend you to check your sources again. Most of the studies are based on other Armenian scholars. So one study by an Armenian is usually multiplied without any addition or original research by many Armenian or "Western" historians. On the other hand if you actually check non-Turkish historians who have an expertise on some aspect of the Ottoman history the result you get is much different. As there are no real evidence, the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI like the Blue Book or documents that have been proven to be forgeries like The Memoirs of Naim Bey as evidence which I'm sure your books also have them as divine truth when they're nothing but garbage. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No Armenian scholars in my collection. Just foreign nationals. However, the Blue Book is a bonafide source that's the real deal. If you read what I have added about the Blue Book you will find out why. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did you added about the Blue Book?

The Blue Book is a well accepted propaganda work of disinformation. It is even labeled as "a disinformation book favoring the Allied states and aiming at shaping the public opinion, which does not go beyond the obsessive task of humiliating the Turks." by William Hardy McNeill who wrote the biography of Arnold J. Toynbee, author of the Blue Book. The Blue Book was not even regarded as a evidence in Malta Tribunals. I don't understand how some people still utilize such false documents as proof. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth, this is a second note of you insulting other editors and now on national bases: "I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)". Please pay attention! Aregakn (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So calling someone a Greek is an insult? The only insult here is the one you just made by labeling the word Greek as an insult. Get real! TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your word-play has no sense. You clearly called Greeks and some other nations, you had in your mind, liars, as, in your words, they have no proofs, and that they are "pussyfooting" and victimising themselves baselessly. I'll let you know, that this kind of nationalistic and racist behavior is not tolerated in Wikipedia so restrain yourself from such comments and insults on whole nations. Aregakn (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I only made an assumption. It's actually you who identify it with an insult. It's a rather pathetic attempt. As I see from you and others here Wiki allows everything these days. Please refrain from making such foul comments in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you made either an assumption and/or a comment (a negative one) and that very comment is based on national belonging, and this puts you where I told already. Keep in mind, that ethnic or racial comments or assumptions are and will not be tolerated. And then your other comments in the last message have no value-adding, as quite often. Aregakn (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your attempt to label what I said as an insult is simply pathetic. No discussion needed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to lable it. If you remember the message was "noting", you may read it again to see that I noted it. Thus I "invited" your attention to the issue. What you do afterwards is not my concern and you decide on your own. Aregakn (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[tabbing over to the left to save space] Back to the historical point of the Blue Book. The Republic of Turkey recently asked the British government to renounce the Blue Book. Unfortunately for Turkey the British government not only denied the request the government firmly stood by the Blue Book as accurate historical testimony. If anyone has anything to say against the Blue Book I would like to hear from you here. Referenced sources only from independent sources only (no Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian or Greek sources). There are numerous Turkish scholars/sources that attempt to discredit the Blue Book by claiming that the testimony was falsified. Their reasoning is that the names of the eye-witness testimonies were with held, because they were still living in the Ottoman Empire and they feared reprisals, however, their names were published independently shortly after the Blue Book was published. More recently an uncensored edition has been published that has integrated the original Blue Book with the names of the eye-witnesses, but it is the identical/same testimony and witnesses that were published shortly after the original events. btw what did you people do to the three paragraph section about the "Blue Book" in this article about the Armenian Genocide? It has completely disappeared. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You may find this book useful: [30].

It addresses a lot of documents utilized by genocide claimers as well as the blue book. Apparently Blue Book is only based on personal accounts. Even if all of them are true it doesn't go beyond the point of proving anarchy in the region. Does Blue Book suggests with proofs that Ottoman government ordered the killings? Can you please give links to specific examples if the book is available online?

Also when you say independent sources do you mean the articles itself or the place they're published? For example the ATAA website has many articles and documents by foreign scholars or resources.

Certain edits are deleted by IP users. I got some of mine deleted too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the Uncensored Blue Book. There is clear testimony that proves without any doubt the systematic genocidal intentions of the government of the Ottoman Empire including Sivas, Marsovan, and Angora. The whole reason that the Blue Book was published was to provide full-proof evidence of what happened. I am sure that you are more than capable of looking up an electronic copy. I don't need to. I have a hardcopy. What is really interesting is that the Ottoman Turkish government wasn't bothered about how loyal their Armenian-Turkish subjects were. It didn't make any difference at all. The Armenians in Angora were mostly Roman Catholic Christians and they were very loyal citizens of the Ottoman Empire (as testified many local Turkish officials). The Ottoman Turkish government treated them the same way as they treated the vast majority of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. And the detail in the testimony is comprehensive. Even the details in how they were killed. In one case, the Turks "practised economy" i.e. they didn't waste bullets, on the deported Armenians. Instead they used axes and daggers. The Turks that carried out the deed openly boasted about their achievements (see page 401 of the Uncensored Blue Book). Also, p. 403 of the Blue Book. The tanners and the butchers were called to Asi Yozgad by Turkish officials. The butchers used their small butchers' axes and the tanners used their circular knives on the Armenians as ordered by the Turkish officials. And these Turkish officials were sent from Constantinople (later called Istanbul) because the local Turkish officials refused to do the deed. The local Turkish officials could not do it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)