Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Turkey commits to accept outcomes from joint history commission

"Gul also said that Turkey declared it would accept the outcomes of the joint endeavor" http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060915&hn=36549

This is a posative move by Turkey, if the commission is ever created. A international commission would be a good way for everyone to get closure on this.

Could this be added to the main article?--SolDrury 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But Armenians don't accept this suggestion. Because, It is not clear to be a genocide. If it was not a genoside, Armenians had lied all of the World for years. And they will under impressions of World. Also Turkey will want an atonement from Armenian for their aspersion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.108.133.131 (talk • contribs).

This is just a silly turkish attempt to ignore 80 years of analysis, as if history is about joint endeavors. The question is whether turks want to be known as blind fundamentalists or as rational humanists. With 1.5million lifes on the table there are few places to hide.88.16.44.192 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then please analyse this File:Turkish children killed by armenians.jpg

There are more pictures this is just one of them Obsteel 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But you have to see this one too. Turkish Children, women and mothers whose babies were disemboweled from their wombs by Armenians in April 25th, 1918 in Subatan.

File:C3 72.jpg

Obsteel 12:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference "Massacre Exerted By The Armenian On The Turks During World War I Pictures" Obsteel 12:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be amusing (if it were on a less serious subject). Subatan was within the territory of the Armenian Republic in April 1918 - so whatever massacre the picture shows, it was not taken at Subatan. Meowy 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So you mean That there were no Turks living there? what is the logic?

Uh, out of curiosity, how are you guys so sure these simply aren't Armenians who were killed by Turks? I would be inclined to believe you guys and everything but there's a slight problem when no on corroborates your BS stories. --MarshallBagramyan 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

because now you have a monopoly on truth? I know its hard for you to grasp the fact that there was no genocide, just inter communal massacres in which your people were enthusiastic participants. There is more than enough documented proof on this but again, it doesnt fit your devious agenda to come to terms with it. Dont worry, the other side wont budge an inch either. Not in a million years! lutherian 14:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian, it seems as though its hard for you to grasp the fact that there was was indeed a genocide against Armenians perpetrated by Ottoman Turkish forces. I also like how you accuse the Armenians of having a "devious agenda" when clearly the government of Turkey has been attempting to suppress and silence mention of the event not only in Turkey but beyond their borders too. I once read that when Israeli politicians moved to have Israel recognize the event as a genocide, Turkey contacted the government and threatened the status of Jews within Turkey if the action was approved. Such an aggressive attitude will only contribute to the inevitable downfall of Turkey. -- Clevelander 14:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ravished Armenia

Someone should mention this movie in the Art section: Ravished Armenia.--Eupator 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The promtional poster of this film is highly denigrating and racist, it has no business here lutherian 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No matter what your opinion of it is, it's still history and should remain intact. Please stop reverting this article and writing sarcastic remarks in reference to other users. -- Clevelander 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

progpaganda back on track

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Hectorian WP:3RR violation

You have disregarded the warning which reflects on your bad faith lutherian 12:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not break any rule. If the IP is yours u are in biggggggggggg trouble... --Hectorian 12:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

gosh im sooooo scared that I need to take a dump this instant, is that ok with u? lutherian 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious the only reason that it hasnt been officialy recognized as a genocidal act is because certain Nations like the United States and others wish to maintain good relations with Turkey. Furthermore, just admit that Armenians have had it rough throughout history and even had to bear the brunt of Islamic Imperialism at the hands of the ruthless Turkic barbarians.

"Islamic Imperialism" new social science discovery of the year... :)...neurobio 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian RFC

Don't you think it's time?--Eupator 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts from Jorgenpfhartogs

Gentlemen, please keep it civilized. Whether, you're right or not. This topic is highly controversial so a NPOV is almost impossible. Just recide to facts and not to popular beliefs. I won't agree or deny there has been an Armenian Genocide: all I know is that a lot of Armenians died in those last moments of the War and if, as mentioned to me by Turks, this was a reprisal for atrocities committed by Armenians, the please proof this. It has been suggested that the proof supplied by the "Western World" is one-sided and always favours their "Christian allies". I do not see the world as divided between east and west and between Christians and muslims. If there was a Turkish genocide by Aremnians than proof this and if the proof given by so-called Armenian Supporters is wrong them please mention why. Jorgenpfhartogs 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

errrr "Turkish genocide by Aremnians"? Thats the first time I hear that the Armenians comitted a genocide on Turks! Could you rephrase pls? lutherian 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this has been suggested quite often. Stanford Shaw a proffesor at UCLA depicted the Armenians as the victimizers rather than victims in their book The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Bernard Lewis, a well known Western scholar of Islam has expressed similiar sentiments. This has been discussed in the epilogue of The Burning Tigress if you would care to research these claims more.Max The Dog 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that these claims are not treated kindly in Balakian's book. Nor, do I personally believe the Armenians committed any acts near the scale as what was perpetrated upon them. Max The Dog 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, my dear fellow, that you are confusing massacre with genocide, two words with very different meanings. I dont think that professor Shaw ever said that the massacres perpetrated by Armenians on Turks amounted to an act of genocide! Balakian is not a reference as he is extremely one sided (which is to be expected from a hardcore armenian). What is being contested here is whether the massacres perpetrated by the Turks on their armenian subjects amounts to genocide. There is a world of evidence that rejects this claim and this is the main reason why this topic has been shrouded in controversy since the accusations first came to light lutherian 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Balakian is one of the finest writers that I know of (regardless of his ethnicity). I have read both The Burning Tigris and Black Dog of Fate. The former, I believe is a very solid source of information (not to mention very well-written). Balakian has certainly done painstaking research on the subject. I also enjoy his creative writing (though I enjoy the works of William Saroyan more). -- Clevelander 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article spends far too much time explaining away why Turkey rejects the accusations of the Genocide yet little has been cited to how the Genocide was carried out. The best thing to do is move them into another article called Denial of the Armenian Genocide (the current redirect is insufficent). While Turkey and to a lesser degree Azerbaijan deny the Genocide from ever occuring (other countries that do overtly deny it do it for obvious political reasons; i.e. US Congress vote in 2000), the overall consensus is that it did happen. We can spend our time editing the article on the facts we have and what was being reported back then and then devote the Denial page to what Turkey's position is to the matter and opposing views thereafter. Nearly 15 kilobytes of this article just spends time refuting Armenian charges.--MarshallBagramyan 00:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's time somebody created a Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. -- Clevelander 01:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, thats perfect, why dont we rewrite histroy, remove all the opposition to the genocide thesis and make this topic a pure propaganda piece. And to add insult to injury call the opposing view denial to put them in the same category as those that deny the Jewish holocaust, like that the credibility of the opposing view can be shattered further. Wow, your modus operandi seems to be identical whoever you are as long as you are of armenian ancestory or a sympathizer because you have a serious gripe with the existance of Turkey. There is a very predictable pattern here which is what makes this whole exercise such a big farce lutherian 05:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact is that the "opposition" to the Genocide thesis is held by an extremely small minority: Turkey and only a handful of relatively unknown scholars. So far, the "opposing view" does not present any citations nor does not refute of what eyewitnesses were claiming back then. Its going to take much more than screaming "they were Christian, they were biased which meant they lied" than that. You've done little to show us what irks you so much. The Genocide has been recognized by many nations and so the opposition position does not deserve so much room on this article especially when its a minority and oft-criticized view. --MarshallBagramyan 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You Mr. Bagramyan can argue all you want, it is a matter of FACT that your opinion of events of that period are nothing short of bigotry. When you add a gay racist satanist heavy metal bands to support your claims, propaganda ads or assume that because some fundamentalist american physician talked about massacres that his POV should be taken seriously or that convicted criminals like Akcam speak the truth whilst the words of highly respected scholars such as Lewis or Shaw should be dismissed because you and others claim that they are on the payroll of the Turkish government, its difficult to take you seriously. And maybe the most insidious and despicable addition to this topic is the attempt to make comparisons with the Jewish Holocaust to gain the sympathy of Jews. It is frankly in very bad taste! What you people fail to understand is that bullying, denigrating your opponents and making wild claims and attempting to distort the truth will get you nowhere. No wonder this argument has been dragging on for more than 90 yrs. lutherian 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian, Taner Akçam is a very credible scholar and free thinker. He is also very brave for speaking against what the government of his country is doing - attempting to suppress the facts and violating human rights. Lewis, Shaw, and McCarthy on the other hand have both been payed and sponsered by the Turkish government to support their denial of the actual events.

I would also say that the Armenian Genocide was in many ways similar to the Holocaust. Take for example the death marches, extermination centers, cutting off the "head of Armenian society" (the intellectuals, writers, etc.), throwing Armenians into a cave and then placing a torch in front of the entrance as a sort of crude "gas chamber," the cattle cars, the Armenian resistance at Musa Dagh and Van (like the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto), and of course there are even more events that I can use to compare both. Your statement that comparing it to the Jewish Holocaust is "insidious and despicable" is, in my opinion bigotry. In fact, I would say that the Genocide itself and its subsequent denial should properly be dubbed insidious and despicable. Also, you mention "bullying." All I have to say is look at Armenian and Turkey today. Who has closed off their border to Armenia? Who has forced Armenians in their own country into not accepting the Genocide? Who is trying to assimlate their Armenian population? Who dubs all Armenians as terrorists? The answer is consistently Turkey. -- Clevelander 10:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah thats right Celvelander, the evil, despicable, inferior, barbarian Turks, they are the ones to blame for all the death and destruction, heck why not even the Jewish holocaust? (im surprised none of you came up with some way of blaming the Turks for the Jewish holocaust). Poooor Armenians, such an honorable and peaceful and loyal race, would not hurt a fly and how dare we call them terrorists??? For what happened in the 70's and 80's? Come on, after all it was just a bunch of inferior Turks that were murdered, its so easy to read your thoughts! Im just curious, do you believe that you are going to get Turkey to recognize a complete fallacy? And maybe follow it up by opening its borders to allow free trade? And whilst you're at it maybe throw some land as a goodwill gesture? Do you really believe that or are just insane? Have the armenians ever showed any goodwill gesture since this dispute arose? Ha, that would be the day! lutherian 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:) Just reading the stuff this guy says to me makes me want to laugh; moreso whenever he claims that Armenians are filled with bigotry when 90% of his post fills up against pent-up anger against Armenians :). Do you really believe that or are just insane? Hehe, this isn't the complaint dept. pal, this is Wikipedia, post your diatribe elsewhere.--MarshallBagramyan 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

actually im lamenting about the sorry state of this topic which has been hijacked by a bunch of thugs who want to push their propaganda ways lutherian 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Սթափ ֆիդինգ դը թռոլ, both of you. --Eupator 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Բայց Ինքը սկսեց :) դժբախտաբար, Ինքը ստեղ էլ կ մնա --MarshallBagramyan 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Արդեն իրան ոչ ոք լուրջ չի ընդունում մեկա, ես գնտում որ դրանց հետ վիճել իմաստ չունի այլ հակառակը պատասխանելով մենք իրանց ոնց որ թե օրինականություն տանք: Վաղ թե ուշ դրան կտշեն ստեղից:--Eupator 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

fjalsdfkjéweahéwefwasfsdsucka ma pagoda?asdhjsldfehaeoiergosdf apsdfhfweoawhe? lutherian 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, խենթացավ հիմարը; պարզապես ճԻշտ ես, այս Թուրքերը էշից ավելի "էշ" էն; եվ այտպես էլ կ մնան --MarshallBagramyan 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering, but i could not help myself on commenting in this: Im just curious, do you believe that you are going to get Turkey to recognize a complete fallacy? And maybe follow it up by opening its borders to allow free trade? (by lutherian)... I am astonished! Do u really believe that Turkey will be accepted in the EU, and we will open our borders to allow free trade and citizens' movements as long as Turkey does not fulfill the criteria? Recently the European Parliament said that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide may be a criterio for Turkey's accession... If Turkey's deep state (i never blame the people, u know:)...) wants "special treatment" (as they want in the Cyprus issue), all they'll get will be a "special relation with the EU"... Full membership will come only if they act and do what all the other members do... --Hectorian 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you dont get it do you? Its the desire to align itself with European norms that matters because thats where it has most to gain. Turkey has no business joining the EU and they wont, thank God for that! And you know where the EU can shove its offer for a "special relationship", right? By the middle of the century, your old fart EU will be begging for a strong enough labor force to support its rapidly ageing population. Look around you (maybe not in the case of insignificant members like greece I may add), the social institutions are crumbling under their own weight, its pathetic. No way josé, Turkey certainly doesnt belong to your shithole and soon to be bankrupt club! lutherian 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... Europe does not sacrifice democracy for labour force... Btw, what u "forgot" to say is that by the middle of the century maybe Turkey will be partitioned AGAIN. Cause, as u probably know, Europe is getting united, but Turkey is disolving... a view of what is happening in the big cities and the SE, as well as the ongoing disputes between Erdogan and the new Prima General, are forcing things to the edge... --Hectorian 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah I know it gives you a hard on to fantasize about the end of Turkey and its rather funny considering that less than 60 years ago your beloved Eurosuckers were busy killing each other wholesale. You talk of unity? Uh its not what the polls show, lets see.....who rejected the so called European constitution not so long ago? Paleeeeassse, take your silly ideas to lala land! lutherian 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

...and you would call Turkey a model of unity? I suppose that's why the Kurds want to separate from it. Let us not forget that just a decade ago your beloved Turkey was busy killing off and assimilating the Kurds wholesale. -- Clevelander 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys stick to the topic please.--MarshallBagramyan 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It begun as something relevant: Turkish blockage on Armenia and EU Parliament considering the recognition of the Armenian Genocide as a precondition for Turkey's accesion. but it was carried away... anyway, i am not gonna continue it. --Hectorian 19:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Hectorian. What we mean is: Μην ταϊ'στε...--Eupator 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lewis, Shaw, and McCarthy on the other hand have both been payed and sponsered by the Turkish government to support their denial of the actual events" how do you know that they are paid? i expected that you are logical guys.now i see that you are also fool.if u say that they are paid, some people will say that Taner akcam and the others are also paid..be logical..hipatian

Hijacked Topic

Once again this controversial topic is hijacked by a band of hard core armenians and their sympathizers. The usual suspects: Eupator, Hectorian, Clevelander, marshalbargmayan and angus amongst others. Their complete lack of scruples and their highly biased and propagandistic approach to this topic is resulting in a very misleading view of events, way below wiki standards. Any information that contradicts the genocide thesis, irrespective of its validity is rapidly eliminated and kept out of the topic through edit warring maintained by a 24 hour monitoring by the core group and their stooges. So congratulations to you for making this arguably one of the poorest (in terms of quality of content) topics in wikiland. lutherian 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Has ever crossed your mind the idea of u trying to hijack this article, but other users not letting u to? --Hectorian 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the definition of hijacking? In any case the evidence is on the pages and I have nothing else to add! lutherian 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right... --Hectorian 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Comment added at request of Artist to "art" section

Armenian-American keyboardist Derek Sherinian collaborated with duduk master Djivan Gasparyan on the song "Prelude To Battle", which Sherinian "dedicated to his great grandmother who fought the Turks in the Armenian genocide" as part of his 2006 CD "Blood of the Snake".

Thank you.

Tvccs 06:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rest of this discussion moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Turco-Armenian Relations and British Propaganda During The First World War. LVIII

• Turco-Armenian Relations and British Propaganda During The First World War. LVIII

• The Turco-Armenian 'Adana Incidents' in the Light of Secret British Documents (July, 1908 - December ,1909)

• several articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.213.72 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

What an ungrateful government you have. The British and their Russophobia are the only reason the Republic of Turkey even exists today.--Eupator 19:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon, pls ignore this provocative racist! lutherian 06:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

what a perfect crowd again. I previously showed your "grand master" that the picture you are using actually shows russian soldier posing in front of cicumcised victim still you have the photo and dont feel ashamed of writing genocide victims under it. That is a nice summary of your state of mind.

just to remind you: and the only reason Armenian people are dead en masse is the ignorance and blinded obdience of pathetic armenian intellectuals/revolutionaries of the time to their masters. I see the time has changed but not much has changed.neurobio 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing picture

Armenian Genocide victims

Dear all I am removing the unsourced picture where Russian-Armenian soldiers are posing in front of their circumcised visctims. or should I write muslim victims of Armenian voulunteers in the russian army on it?neurobio 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the soldiers are Russian-Armenian? —Khoikhoi 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do you have verifiable evidence or written proof of this or is this your own observation? -- Clevelander 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't. The only reason I didn't readd the image was because it was unattributed.--Eupator 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did find a source...but the website seems to be like the counterpart of TAT. The caption on the image reads:

Turkish soldiers proudly posing with bodies of their Christian victims. To these Muslims, the "Christians were like animals to be hunted."

Regarding the link about Muhammed: if that's not Islamophobia I don't know what is. :( —Khoikhoi 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I was going check out the source where the image specfically was uploaded from (Armeniapedia.org) and see if it was taken by Armin T. Wegner. I'm afraid can't do that, however, as an Azeri hacker seems to have completely wiped Armeniapedia's domain (the administrator of the site, fellow WikiArmenian contributor Raffi Kojian told me of earlier incidents during this week). -- Clevelander 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can it be restored? —Khoikhoi 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Raffi can restore it (he did it when it first happened this week). It was brought to my attention at first by my friend Avik Topchyan. He posted details about the incident on the WikiProject Azeri talk page [1]. The guy's name is Murad Mamedov according to the information Raffi provided. -- Clevelander 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Using Google's cache, I was able to recover this [2] and this [3]. No information on where it came from, though. Perhaps Raffi can tell us. -- Clevelander 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately these are russian soldier. let me prove it. First they are not Turkish soldiers. it doesnt need any source every Turkish person knows that the Turkis army started using these round hats (see... the guy on the left is wearing one of these)long after the Turkish republic. These hats were not used by germans also. if you are not satisfied check these link to see Turkis army clothes.[[4]] [[5]] [[6]]. for german army:[[7]] So who were wearing that kind of uniforms? Fellow Russians ofcourse [[8]], [[9]][[10]](page 3)

And take a close look at the bayonets and rifles. See anything? the same bayonets and rifles.

Finally; the resolution is not good still if you take a close look you will see that some dead guys (if not all) are cicumcised. So Eupator I am not talking out of my A... You are withnessing a shameless act here. Putting pictures where muslims were killed by Russian-Armenian army and presenting it as a genocide proof. even writing Turkish soldiers proudly posing with bodies of their Christian victims. To these, the "Christians were like animals to be hunted.". Simply nausating. neurobio 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I say Russin-armenian army because American newspapers of that time were also using that description. And do not try to find its source. There is no source... It is not an Armin Wenger photo. neurobio 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the uniforms in the pictures that you have shown perfectly match those worn in the image (Ottoman, Russian, and German - I'm not sure why you would even consider including the latter) and you still have not shown us written proof of your claims that these soldiers were Russian or Armenian and not Turkish. I say that we should continue to pursue the source of the image just to be sure. -- Clevelander 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

> my dear friend. I am telling you I digged to find the source myself for some time. there is no source. And even Fadix had to admit that these are Russian army clothes. The only army in the world that time that uses these two types of hats were the russian Army. the only two armies that use that long hat is Russian and Ottoman army. If it is not Turkish army (my sources clearly show that) than it is the russian army. And yes none army clothes match perfectly except for the hat combination that is why I say these are armenian Volunteers accompanied by Russian Officers. Minor differences are due to weather conditions, supply problems or they are the Armenian Volunteers. And I am telling you the dead guys are circumcised. What are you after still? I addet the german clothes because the german officers were in command of the ottoman army at that time. The last one is the revolutionary army clothes (1917) I added it to show that the rifle and bayonet is Russian style since it is perfectly visible there. What written proof is needed for a Forged picture?????? Do the Turkish side has to find the source of all made up pictures. it is the responsibilty of genocide Zealots. Take a close look at that famous otoman officers posing in front of choppet heads it also has no source and looks damm like photomontage. Now who is supposed to show it is real? the Turks? I guess not!!!!neurobio 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling all those academics "distinguished" is subjective and factually dishonest. What makes them so exceptional in comparison to Deborah Lipstadt, Elie Wiesel, and Samantha Power? Heath Lowry never held a full-time job as a college professor and all the books he had written were never carried by a mainstream publishing press. His Ataturk Chair in Turkish Studies at Princeton was partially funded by the Turkish government and Ahmet Ertegun, the Turkish co-founder of Atlantic Records. Bernard Lewis' position on the Genocide is equally dubious: he originally referred to it as a "terrible holocaust" in his 1962 book The Emergence of Modern Turkey and was subsequently fined (for a mere one franc) in France for denying the Genocide after reversing his position on the issue.

Stanford Shaw's essays on the Genocide have been widely criticized for portraying conditions during the war as especially rosy and pleasant, "The Armenians were to be protected and cared for until they returned to their homes after the war [obviously that didnt' happen]...Muslims wishing to occupy abandoned buildings could do so only as renters...with the understanding that they would have to leave when the original owners returned [oddly enough, several hundred thousand Armenians never did]...The deportees and their possessions were to be guarded by the army while in transit as well as in Iraq and Syria...the government would provided for their return once the crisis was over" - History of the ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey vol.2 Reform, Revolution and Republic: The rise of Modern Turkey.

McCarthy is a whole other bag of worms. Most, if not all, these academics can be discounted from holding any distinction.--MarshallBagramyan 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

unlike you I don think I have an ultimate authority to judge on historians still I wonder why armenians love "genocide scolars" who are actually Physicians, economicians or publishers so much. Anyway I will not talk about it. I discussed the reason why I added that (look down). If you are not happy with it that we should write down all academics who are opposing.neurobio 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the Turkish government's line of "leave the debate to the historians" gets old. Most scholars have discounted the "opposition's" arguments.

I suggest the "revert war" to end. Discuss and argue changes here. --MarshallBagramyan 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect such a decision. I have left wiki for 3 monts because i got fed up with revert wars.neurobio 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are adding balakian haliculations there ha. McCarthy is a bag of worms and Balakian is cool.neurobio 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Balakian simply collected the quotes....I don't think he ever made grand claims like McCarthy's ridiculous "2.5 million dead Muslims" claims --MarshallBagramyan 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

yes quotes that are results of selective copy pasting and miss leading and by the way quotes that can never be proven like the hitler quote. that number is the total muslim death in word war I what is so ridiculous about it. only in Gelibolu turkish army lost 300.000 in sarikamis 90.000 russian-armenia army killed some 500.000 plus poverty hunger and disease as simple as that. if you are going to add armenian sources then we can add Turkish sources and you wont like them for sure.neurobio 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you for real? Turkish army deaths? You're forgetting the dead from tribal Kurdish death squads:rolleyes 5,500,000 German soldiers died in WWII!--Eupator 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

as it is robustly documented from Ottoman archives 500.000 muslim deaths due to Russian-Armenian army and Armenian insurgent attacks are all civilians mostly women, children and elderly people.neurobio 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Ottoman archives support your claims that 500,000 Muslims died or not, if you actually saw all of the documents within it, you would see overwhelming proof supporting the idea that the deaths of Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire were a result of a full-scale genocide. -- Clevelander 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

that is the tragic part. England was in control of Ottoman archive for years. they were desperately looking for evidence against prisoners in malta who were all high ranking Ottoman young turk officers. They found nothing. Ottoman archives are open today Your new draft Hilmar Kaiser(or something like that)and an another armenian researcher from an armenian institute worked there for months. they copied some 3000 documents illegally and found nothing. but SECRET orders to protect armenians to supply water and food to secure their belongings are plenty. Document showing the armeinan uprising and atrocities are plenty. Orders leting armenians to come back are plenty If you had a single document from ottoman archive Diaspora could have gone to an international court and end this for all. You could get good money and recognition from Turkey. Your case is not not valid and unproveble in terms of law. actually quite disproved by Ottoman documents. That is why you cant go to a court and end this. but instead diaspora continues propaganda all around so that this will be common knowledge someday.neurobio 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition

First Due to the Nopov policiy this section cannot be named as Denial.Second there are some 20 western (as if they are more reliable) academics who oppose genocide claims. Inorder to make that article like a real article rather than a list we previously left only several prominent names and described them as prominent or distinguished. if these words go then 15 more names come back.neurobio 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If the vast majority of academics call it denial, then it should be presented as such (as a majority view) —Khoikhoi 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

in the academic community no word such as Denial is used except for "genocide scolars".

I will not discuss weather the genocide is universal or not. let me put it simple. is ASALA terorist? is Al kaida terorist. Is ETA terorist. Yes. But they are not named as Terorist organisations as a resuly of NoPov policy. As simple as that! I see not much has changed here. No discussion an many reverts...neurobio 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not because of NPOV, but because of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism... —Khoikhoi 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

it is just a subbranch of Nopov policy. Main idea is the same.neurobio 21:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. It's more of a style guidline for making Wikipeida encyclopedic. —Khoikhoi 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on khoikhoi I know its difficult for you but at least try to be honest, your arguments are hollow lutherian 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

well we dont think the same here then. the section was named as opposition for a year. it was logical and true since the opposing party was also academics and historians. now what happened that it has become denial. Somebody found an archive document in tha Ottoman archives which says kill all armenians or what?neurobio 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah its ironic how the same clowns that hijacked this topic and ganged up in a coordinated way with revert wars now ask that it be stopped right after they added their trash. Its also funny how the topic tends to get blocked right after the genocide gang have added their propaganda material. lutherian 15:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Population

According to

- Marcel Léart, an Armenian (Krikor Zohrab), who took the Armenian Patriarchate statistics as a basis of his estimates 2,560,000

- Armenian historian K. J. Basmachian 2,380,000

- Armenian Delegation that participated in the Paris Peace Conference 2,250,000

- Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1,800,000

- French Yellow Book 1,555,000

- Encyclopaedia Britannica 1,500,000

- Ludovic de Constenson 1,400,000

- H.F.B. Lynch 1,345,000

- Revue de Paris 1,300,000

- 1893 Ottoman statistics 1,001,465

- 1906 Ottoman statistics 1,120,748

- Ottoman statistics just before World War I 1,295,000

- Annual Register (London) 1,056,000

in lausanne peace treaty numbers from Ludovic de Constenson were used. the allies (england, France etc.) stated that Armenian numbers are highly inflated. neurobio 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It takes a little satisfaction to compare figures for Anatolia, Armenian Villiets, Asiatic Turkey with those of the entire Ottoman Empire. But do toy with articles, I don't have time to babysit. Fad (ix) 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

- :p neurobio 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Eupator you have nothing to say... you are just a revert machine. I am citing Turkish sources and impartial sources count ha. lets se your references.

Balakian, Peter (2003). The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response. HarperCollins. ISBN 0060198400.

Dadrian, Vahakn, N., The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Berghahn Books, 1995

Cilicia.com - "Kurdistan Recognizes the Armenian Genocide"

OurArarat.com - "International Affirmation And Recognition Of The Armenian Genocide"

and so on. "you say also you need a ref for each name you and that so called "scholar" should at least be notable enough to have a wiki page". that is a very valid approach. From now on people who dont have a wiki page will loose their chairs. All these people have Prof. title and a chair in US universities. What are you talking about??? neurobio 00:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

yes Going to army and figting in all fronts while Armenians are doing bussiness and getting rich for centuries is priviladge. Anyway I understand you if this Genocide fails your whole life and Character will fall into pieces.

Armenians, Greeks, Jews and other minorities got rich only because the Muslim Turks thought to highly of themselves to be involved in "trivial" things such as accounting and being bankers. The good graces of the Ottoman Empire had nothing to do with the fact that minorities got wealthy - it was the other way around. The Sivas province during the 19th century once had 34 bankers: 31 of them Armenian, two of them Greek, and 1 of them Jewish. Islam itself was the reason why Turks did not advance in those professions until the late 19th century. If Christians were not a liability for the Empire, then there would have been no need for the devshirmeh.

You cannot even get your own country's history right.--MarshallBagramyan 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me my own history and religion :). What I find interesting is you say "The Sivas province during the 19th century once had 34 bankers: 31 of them Armenian". this is true. But I thought according to your sources armenians were discriminated, exploited, slaves though :) ...neurobio 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They were treated as second-class citizens (testimony inadmissable in Muslim courts, not allowed to ride on horses, carry weapons, serve in the military, pay double taxes to support the deliapidated Ottoman economy, etc.) not overtly exploited slaves (unless you readd Devshiermeh). Working as a banker, loaner, or a financier was thought to have been a lowly duty that Turks and Muslims thought to high of themselves of ever entering.--MarshallBagramyan 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not argue about Muslims not wanting to be crafts man or banker it is totally wrong and is another dogma which is simmilar to saying "there is no democracy and no science in eastern countries because of islam" totaly unable to define social mechanics. You stick to a prototype islam definition that you have learned from Christian sources but Islam is not a single entitiy.

Untill when the Armenians had these somewhat lesser rights? didnt they have their own courts? How many Churches and Schools did they have? And What were the rights of european Jews (the plague bearers) at that time? what may be their class in Europe 6th 7ht...? Judging 1900 with todays norms is misleading. How were black peole and indians treated in US at that time? and above all what were christians of the world were thinking of Muslims at that time? Non believer Mohammedan devils of course. I would advice you to read some missionary diaries to see that The ottoman treatment to its minorities was much more humane than all other empires of that time.neurobio 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are hundrest of documents ordering killings in German archives despite organised clensing. There is not a single order saying "kill", "destroy" or what ever...

Second: Half of french armenian legion is ottoman Armenians this is clear. Musa dag armenians are ottoman Armenians right? Van armenians are Ottoman armenians right? Sasoon Armenians Are ottoman Armenians right? Karekin Pastirmaciyan is Ottoman armenian (even a member of parliement)right? Andranik(your hero general) is Ottoman armenian right? Bogos says clearly "without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers contributed to the liberation of a portion of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff" these are apart from Armenians who are conscribed from Russia. PLEASE GO AND read this http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyunner.php?tp=ea&lng=eng. A book by armenians telling their story. Many many many armenians confess that at least on person from their family was in Andraniks arm...

And finally thats what TURKEY says it doesnt matter if its ridiculous for you or not. It is the position of Turkey section!!!!

None of my sources have anything to do with Christianity. The millets were headed by religous leaders so if a Christian Armenian got into a dispute with another Christian Armenian, the Christian church in the village would hold the trial, not, the Ottoman Muslim court. The Muslims did not care on what went on in internal Christian or Jewish affairs but if it was a dispute between a Christian and a Muslim, the inferiority status kicked in.

"There are hundres of documents ordering killings in German archives despite organised clensing. There is not a single order saying "kill", "destroy" or what ever..." I don't dispute statistics and methodology but there was no writter direct order by Hitler. Nevertheless, the absence of a document does not necessarily mean a genocide cannot occur (i.e. orders given verbally)

Musa dag armenians are ottoman Armenians right? Van armenians are Ottoman armenians right? Sasoon Armenians Are ottoman Armenians right? But none of those were soldiers fighting in a rebellion or upring. In each instance, the Ottoman military directly provoked Armenians, this is attested by eyewitnesses who all affirm that Turkish authorities provoked Armenians so that they could a pretext to attack or "suppress" the "rebellions". No one Musa Dagh differed slightly in that Armenians knew that they were going to be deported and killed. You're simply giving analogies of self defense like the Warsaw Uprising and "uprising" of the Jewish Bialystok ghettos in 1944.

"And finally thats what TURKEY says it doesnt matter if its ridiculous for you or not. It is the position of Turkey section!!!!" You can include that explanation on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article instead of needlessly elongating this one. Let's face reality, the entire article chronicles nothing but the truth and its only you and a handful of POV pushers who are unable to accept them as facts. Germans, Austrians, Americans, British, Swedish, Danes, French, Arab, even Kurds all agree to the same thing: this was systematic and its ridiculous and insulting to continue to add information that contradicts historical sources. --MarshallBagramyan 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So you claim 10.000 people were drawned in one afternoon and it is true. make a calculation please at least use the common sense that you have for sure. All true yes... Why so many fabrications? pictures, documents, tales...?

About orders: in terms of law No document = no proof.

yes Jews were witches and bearers of plague, Black people were slaves, Indians were swept clean, 1.5 Algerians were put to death after 1950 (why no Rightfull, truth seeking, humanitarian Armenian talk about it? wasnt that a genocide too?) And poor armenians were not in the army and they were not in the court equal, they did dity jobs like banking and investment, they were in the parliment, they were in embassies so they rebelled for their land. For gods sake the woman did not have so many rights in Europe at that time.

Just a reminder British offically declared the events are not genocide.

Unfortunately some FACTS IN HISTORY (AS DESCRIBED BY FAMOUS ARMENIAN scolar "Verjiné Svazlian")can not be so easly reverted. The ottoman armenians fought ottoman army and aided Russian army with hopes for independence. VAN was monts before deportation orders. They took the city and gave it ro Russians as simple as that. These are in Armenian "genocide" victims testimonies. one of them says “Find your brothers, bring them home, let the members of the family come together again." But how would they reunite as most of them were in Andranik's army?” the other says "my uncle was with Andranik" the other says "andranik made short work of these Turks" endless examples by armenians. Mass desertations by armenians is also there described by armenians them selves. This Genocide is void in terms of LAW as simple as that. No other debate needed. Yet I undrestand you... this article is yours. I began researching this saying "ok lets see what happened" I was ready to accept anything. It doesnt create my personaliy no problem. But unfortunately you have let all your race to be embedded with the history. You have to see that we also heard stories from our elders. You may think we are lying (as usual). But what if what Nietzche said holds true for you "they thought they were living on an island yet what they landed was a sea monsters back" or as Gandi said "hate harms the hater more than the hated." Can you just for one second imagine we were right what will happen to you?the answer will show you how healthy you can think about this issue.neurobio 00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap. No one who comes here to debate is going to change their mind, least of all Turks. However, its much more simpler for you guys to declare everything as wartime propaganda and constantly vandalize the article by writing "F____ Armenian Liars" than to face reality and facts. Recognition by other countries around the world occurs nearly every year. Blaming a phantom enemy (the Diaspora) and continuously threatening to cut diplomatic and economic ties with them reeks of desparity on the part of your country's government. I would have easily dismissed the claims of Genocide had not the entire Armenian population of the region be reduced to 60,000. According to Turkish denialists, the entire world conspired in 1915 to fabricate countless documents, photos, films, and testimonies just to blame the Turks.--MarshallBagramyan 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How unfortune... I am not here to change anybodies mind. I came here to learn your arguements. Also it seems it is easier for you to write cut the crap instead of reading armenian testimonies. whatever... neurobio 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And where do the majority of these Armenian testimonies come from? Turkish sources :) --MarshallBagramyan 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

oh boy you did not even check the link.neurobio 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

;) I didn't need to check the link to know what I was going to find: obscure books supposedly written by Armenians who not only described how they killed Turks, but boasted about it. My favorite one-liner is found on nearly every anti-Genocide page, "I killed Muslims by every means possible. Yet it is sometimes a pity to waste bullets for this. The best way is to gather all of these dogs and throw them into wells and then fill the wells with big and heavy stones. as I did. I gathered all of the women, men and children, threw big stones down on top of them. They must never live on this earth." Other versions also include ""I killed Azeris by every means possible..." and "I killed Turks by every means possible..."

I know what's in store for those and most of those "Armenian" books do not even exist, or if they do, they misquote, place in incorrect context, or simply fabricate it.

And of course, the latest version of vandalism [11]--MarshallBagramyan 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see... neurobio 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Neuro, dont bother to reason, its like trying to bend steel, only a waste of time unless maybe if you are uri geller lutherian 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, because its the Armenians who regularly delete an entire article by writing "its a huge lie" who have problems facing reality.--MarshallBagramyan 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I want to add here, some or maybe most of the people here claim that it was genocide. I dont think so just because of the reason that it does not fit into the definition. In order for genocide of any kind to occur, the majority group should intend to destroy a national, racial, ethnic etc. group. However, during those times, armenians under the rule of the ottoman empire, helped the russian army (even joined forces). And they themselves have also massacred villages, killed muslims (even baby sksletons are discovered from ruins of muslim villages). Now, every action has a reaction (for the time being, lez assume ottomans killed the armenians). The reaction was harsh, but it was after all a reaction. I mean what do you expect to see in wars? People are killed even at this moment in iraq. ProudTurk

addition to # 8 The position of the international community

I'd like to suggest the following change: On 12th April 2006, some members of the French parliament submitted a bill to create a law that would punish any person denying the existence of the Armenian genocide with up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros. The proposition was set to be debated on 18th May 2006, but was shelved indefinitely. French Foreign Minister Filippe Douste-Blazy said that adoption of the draft bill 'would be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a vast majority of the Turkish people', leading to 'serious political consequences' weakening France's position in Turkey and the entire region. Zenow 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

I can only stress this enough: it's not only Armenians that say there was a genocide. Most historians support the genocide thesis. I would like to point the anon to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If most historians and academics hold a certain view, it should be presented in the article as such. Historians that oppose the genocide thesis are a minority. —Khoikhoi 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And I can only stress this that Genocide is a Law term and can only be be valid when agreed upon a verdict by an international court. There is no such think and Armenians do not dare to go to an international court and end this for all.neurobio 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that, Neuro has a very valid point here, but, for the sake of preserving this blunder, its being ignored! FYI, the president of the Swiss confederation, after returning from a recent trip to Turkey has suggested that the anti racist laws need to be revised because they stifle honest debate (he was referring to the so called armenian genocide). The same arguement was recently put forward by prominent French historians who were arguing that politicians have no competence to decide on matters regarding history. They argued that by "legally" silencing the opposition to the genocide thesis, no proper research on the matter can be conducted. Ofcourse, non of this is mentioned in this highly biased propaganda site. lutherian 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's unsourced.--Tekleni 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced? Its news ma boy, google it if u want cuz I cant bother lutherian 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

well, if you insist: Blocher's comments

Anyways, to get back on topic: historians != some verdict. As Justin McCarthy says, let the historians decide. The answer is that most of them already have. —Khoikhoi 06:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide controversy to possibly swing dutch election

The latest poll shows that Pvda leads CDA by 1 percentage point. But Netherlands' Turkish minority is 365,000 people (total population of netherlands is 16.3 million), out of which 235,000 is eligible to vote. A large section of that has said they will boycott the election. This is bad thing for Pvda because Turks traditionally vote heavily for them and they need the votes in such a tight election. Turks are maybe pvda's most loyal votebase. This will swing the election in favor of CDA and could mean a different government than without the genocide thing.

Albayrak says that she didnt say anything that admitted that the events were genocide. She told a paper today that "I'm not a politician that will trample my identity. I've always defended the same views everywhere with regard to the 'genocide' (allegations) ". It remains to be seen what happens now with Albayrak, who is just 38 years old, a 'rising star' politician who will almost certainly get a ministerial post in a Pvda government. Will such a prominent member who is number 2 on the party hierachy be dropped because of this?

There are also people who say that this genocide thing was brought up by the parties with intent to exclude Turks out of political process but without explicitly saying so. A proxy dressed up to be used to marginalise and humiliate a minority.

Thanks for the edit, that had to be clarified, I personally find it stupid to force someone to hold a view, but party line positions have existed for a long time, here in Canada it even took exagerated proportions on many issues so it would be quite a jump to right away suppose some ill intention such as exclusion. Fad (ix) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Update...There is news that Osman Elmaci (http://www.osmanelmaci.nl/) who was one of the Turks dropped from the election has decided to form a new party for turkish interests because he said turks have lost their trust in the main parties and cannot depend on them anymore. One of the aims will be to fight the genocide allegations ....sorry for my bad english

I've made some minor edits to that section. It's not certain that (a large part of) the Turkish community here will boycott the elections. It's a possibility, and some are definitely considering a boycott, but it would be an exaggeration to say that the entire community has decided to boycott the elections. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Elmaci gaf te kennen dat er momenteel totaal GEEN bewijs aanwezig is waardoor het een genocide betreft. Turkije heeft hun archief opengesteld voor de Armeense regering ivm onafhankelijke onderzoek, maar tot op heden is er geen reactie teruggekomen. Tijdens de 1ste wereldoorlog in 1915 zijn er van verschillende kanten slachtoffers gevallen, dus niet alleen aan de Armeense kant maar ook Turkische.

Wat is de clue van deze hele ophef rond de "Armeense genocide" ? Niets wat op enigszins de waarheid berust. Sinds wanneer bepaalt het Nederlandse politiek wanneer iets een "genocide" betreft? Nederland en de Europese Unie zijn wel iets slimmer ingeschat om EERST met 100% proof bewijzen te komen voordat er vanuit de politiek een standpunt wordt ingenomen die NIET strookt met de werkelijkheid. Laat deze kwestie gewoon over aan DE HISTORICI, en we in Nederland ons gewoon bezig houden met de huidige zaken: Onderwijs, economie en gezondheidszorg - Zeynep, Utrecht

Jeremy Salt

Why was he deleted? —Khoikhoi 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

answer is simple Just because a Turk added it. it is sourced I have the paper Khoikhoi has the paper.neurobio 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason to include the name of a scholar who isen't even remotely notable in his field or hasn't ever produced anything (record-wise personal research that is) considerable of value in the field. It would also be interesting to note that beside his apparent family name, there is nothing excluding him from Ankara's circle as a faculty member of Bilken University political science departement pretended middle eastern specialist (how else could he get published in the so credible Middle Eastern studies (ironic of course)), who Walker in the critic of his book expose his total ignorance of the Armenians, their culture, their language and what we've got here? Ankara sateliting in Australia, quoting Turkish diplomats, not even reaching 10 footnotes and shooting 'Armenian claims', 'Armenian propaganda.' Amazing the quality of the scholars neurobio could come up with. And lets quote an example from one of Walkers review of one of his books: Salt claims that the real number was 265. But Salt's source reference for this figure (no. 32, on p.168) is a disconcertingly vague 'passim', from a printed volume several hundred pages long. This seems to indicate that Salt has not himself seen the actual reference, but only heard about it, maybe through his university, situated in Turkey, where truthful facts about Armenian history are still virtually state secrets. The correct page-reference is '182'. On inspection, the source turns out to relate not to a trustworthy estimate for those killed in the region in 1894, but to the number of slain individuals whose names appeared in the course of the 1895 enquiry into the events. The tchekudge and kelpeten holder on the street crossing mine has written a work on subparticules that got published in some new age pseudophysic 'journal', he supposedly got a PhD when he was in the Philipines, I shall maybe include him on the opponments in articles relating to subatomic particules tsk, tsk... Fad (ix) 02:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for this excellent example of new/personal researchneurobio 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the above post is anything new, perhaps maybe for some googlers who have just learned recently the existance of him, and take this as a pretended maintaining of your intellectual integrity that I will not cite names. To my 'pleasure' I assume you're the one adding original research on the special organization section, that's also great, I'll hope you won't feel hurt once I footnote that section with a dozen of sources (with over half, Turkish). Fad (ix) 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good old Fadix. Always the same. Having "pleasure" in the net.neurobio 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Germany

When did Germany recognize the events as genocide? I have the original June 15, 2005 Bundestag Resolution here (from armenian-genocide.org), and it says "The German Bundestag honors and commemorates the victims of violence, murder and expulsion among the Armenian people before and during the First World War" [12], it doesn't say that Bundestag recognizes the events as 'genocide', anyone following these events know that it is this designation that is important, Bundestag intentionally left this out.. I am taking out Germany's name and removing the map, please put one up without germany highlighted.. regards.. Baristarim 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead we should quote the resolution (what I pasted above) and say that the resolution didn't use the word genocide, that would be more factually correct.. Baristarim 08:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a new edit about the German resolution.. I just think it is more factually correct considering the importance of formal recognition of the genocidal character.. anyways.. Baristarim 08:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the statement a bit, asd the resolution does mention the word "genocide" but does not explicitly endorse it. Kusma (討論) 08:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the current state is good and correct.. No problems with that.. Baristarim 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think your edit acuratly depict the situation. See bolded [13]. The resolution claims the annihilation of the Armenians, the massacres were all organized by the government. It deptict the event from the official majority view, this depiction(organized destruction) can not be just limited as saying that it does not endorse it, it also compare the dark memory of the Turks with the one of Germany in regards to the Holocaust. Since this entry is not limited to the term genocide, but has more to do with the actual killings and massacres, I don't see how the German position could be limited to one word, when that resolution use the 'annihilation of the Armenian people in Anatolia which was organized by the government.' It even includes the murders from the special organization, how can you not endore genocide when you believe that a people was annihilated from the order of a government? That's the restrictive uses of the term genocide, much more restrictive than the one from the UN convention. Fad (ix) 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably the question is the definition of "governments who acknowledge the Armenian Genocide". I agree that the convention says that Germany acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, but if we want to split hairs we can't prove that Germany officially calls the Armenian Genocide a "genocide". Please try to reformulate as you see fit. Kusma (討論) 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Decimated

"Nearly 90% of the Turkish IIIrd Army was decimated by Russian forces" the article says. Seeing as "decimated" means killing every tenth perrson, that makes 9% of the Army died, not a great loss.

What's the real figure? Or is it supposed to mean that was 90% of the army destroyed?

MAP TOO SMALL

The map of the locations of the concentraition camps is too small. It must either be enlarged or it should be removed because it is unreadable.--24.15.9.228 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can click on the map to get a larger version. Kusma (討論) 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk awarded Nobel Prize for Literature

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

wikinews

You are invited to help with these two wikinews articles:

1. French_parliament_approves_bill_on_Armenian_Genocide_denial
2. Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_awarded_to_Orhan_Pamuk

Thank you, JeffBurdges 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Still trying, eh?? I don't get offended at all, I am over all that :)))))) Funny that u didn't put a similar post about Pamuk on the talk page of the Featured Article Turkish literature.. No agendas there, right?? :)))))) Whatever dude, I am the one that had one of his fellow city-dwellers win a Nobel prize, not u :)))) cheers!!Baristarim 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow because you live in the same city as someone who earned a Nobel prize, that reflects well on you? Strange.

No it doesn't actually, but instead of trolling, maybe i would prefer it if u would sit back, try to understand the spirit of what I was trying to say above.. So, how does that reflect on you? :))) I don't live in Istanbul btw, I am from there. Strange. Baristarim 23:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly...

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Orham Pamuk's mother calls him a liar - lol

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Following unsupported and not historically generally accepted statements have been removed

"The single event that started the chain is most likely the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. At the end of the war the Russians took control over a large swath of territory inhabited by Armenia but ceded much of it after the Treaty of Berlin was signed. The Russians claimed they were the supporters of Christians within the Ottoman Empire and were militarily superior to the Ottomans. The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from it.

Armenian bands of raiders started a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Turkish villages. Their aim was to drive the Turkish villagers out of Armenian areas and establish Armenian strongholds throughout the region. This led to an ethnic conflict that left thousands dead on both sides."

I know of no true scholars of this period in history who ascribe that the origins of the Armenian Genocide have come about soley or primarily due to any Armenian aspirations for independence. The second paragraph runs particularly contrary to accepted historical analysis and is entirely unsupportable. I do agree - and have stated before - that this article is in need of a more clear presentation of the rational for the Armenian Genocide and its interconnectivity to events relating to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Turkick identity and nationalism where non-Muslim/non-Turks came to be regarded as less then citizens - as potential competitors - who certain elements within the new "Young Turk" movement determined must be eliminated to ensure their hold on the remains of the Empire and to ensure Turkish dominance of (first the Empire as a whole - but upon loss of WWI only in regards to Anatolia proper). The two paragraphs which I removed from the article are not sufficiently accurate or factual - and in fact are misleading - particularly the second paragraph which has been recently added. --THOTH 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

no, what you do in fact agree to is that this topic requires further censorship and propaganda, and, unfortunately because its being held hostage by a band of armenians and their sympathizers who have ganged up together to coordinate an effective revert war in order to perpetuate what is in fact nothing more than a hate campaign lutherian 05:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hate campaign" lol Any other colorful words you'd like to throw around? Poor turks, always the victims of international conspiracies.--Eupator 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

poor armenians They cant dare to go to a international court because they know all their documents are crap instead they cry all around for the last 100 years. Go to a court if it is proven if not stop polluting the web with your primitive hate... neurobio 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These two paragraphs have been added back into the text. They are clearly fallacious and need to be removed. --THOTH 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

oh THOTH so outright censorship of the article section is not enough, now you are suggesting censorship of the discussions page? That very constructive indeed lutherian 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How sad, the poor Turks aren't able to get out their message because everyone is intent on suppressing their voices.--MarshallBagramyan 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I do not doubt that there was a great unjustifided massacre brought against the Armenians, this article reeks of one-sided bias.

How about abit more about the Armenian resistant movements; Dispite how irrationally the Ottomans acted, The Armenians were not the completely innocent pariahs on a whole(as the Jews were in WW2). There was armed resistance.

yeah, lets not forget the waffen SS Armenian legion of WW2 that some members here have also been very busy suppressing lutherian 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And welcome to Godwin's Law... Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any sourced and scholarly coverage of relevant "Armenian Resistance Movements" (whatever they might be) as they directly pertain to the facts concerning the Armenian Genocide. However I think that we will find the truth in this case to not be to your liking. No one disputes that certain groups of Armenians developed political conciousness and awareness of their (Armenian) discriminated against and powerless and often abused status within the Ottoman Millet system and the lack of much chance for spontatnious unasked for reform by the Ottoman Sultans. Thus the rise of Armenian political movements that pushed for reform and did so by both internal (to the Sultan) and external apeal for REFORMS. The backlash (initialy from the Sultan Abdul Hamid and the Ottoman [Turkihs/Muslim] elite against Armenian calls for reforms and releif and the resentment of the foreign intervention to impose such on the Empire is what led to the series of massacres throughout the Empire in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Thes in turn led to the radicalization of certain Armenian elements and led to (limited) acts of terrorism by some of these elements. However the vast majority of Armenians - even those who had become politized and to some degree organized still only worked toward political and social reform. And in fact - with the ascendency of the CUP/Young Turk movement and the re-establishment of the constitution (suspended by Sultan Hamid) came cooperation by the major Armenian political parties - particularly the Dashnaks - and cessation of any significant violent activities on the part of Armenian groups. Scholars clearly have proven that it was not any acts commited by Armenians that led to radicallization of the Turkihs elite against Armenians - but a mirad of factors having to do with the break up/disolution of Empire where the Turkish elites came to blame minorities and outside interferrence in Ottoman affairs for the problems of the Empire and began to formulate a plan to rid the remaining territories of said Empire of such minorities where the Armenians (and Greeks of Anatolia) were seen as the most direct (potential future) threats to maintinaing Turkish soveregnty over Anatolia and the Empire proper. These are the themes that must be better addressed. Not grade school level unsubstantiated accusations that blame the actions of evil men and a dominant society twisted by collapse and defeats etc on the primary victims of such actions. Get real. Your accusations against the Armenians are exactly the accusations that Holocaust deniers make against the Jews. (spurious) Claims of sedition and efforts to undermine the dominant society are used by both sets of deniers. Each set of claims are equally unsupportable and would be entirely laughable if not for the seriousness of the subject and that fact for the hatefulness of such views. The only difference is that the Turkish state has evaded comming to terms with the truth as they were never fully defeated as Germany was in WWII and they have used a series of circumstances to ensure that any pressure to admit to past crimes can be sucessfully evaded. Thus Turkish idiots like all of you here are sheltered from the scorn that you properly deserve and you have been able to disrupt and divert the truth and include your ugliness here where it absolutely does not belong. This condition is most shameful and reflects poorly and Wikipedia and on Western society in general that you and your kind are allowed to continue to post your filthf and press your ignorance and ugliness upon us all. --THOTH 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

watch your language and remain civil, you are not in a farmhouse lutherian 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, its you who is acting like an immature stable boy. Last time I checked, Turkey did not send 500,000 men to fight and liberate Europe and have 60 of them return back as high-ranking generals, and four of them as Marshals. --MarshallBagramyan 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, and how were they thanked by the allies and fellow christians for their grand deeds? Last time I checked, Armenia was barely out of the middle ages, LOL! As for Turkey, they provided the persecuted with refuge (yet again) from the barbaric orgy of your fellow christians, many of whom are now members of the "supreme" european union. lutherian 20:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the fact that most of them were awarded medals and elevated in rank (Baghramyan, after all was a General who promoted to Marshal to be commander of the Caucasian Front Theater after the war) and their deeds were well known in the world. That's much more than what your beloved Turkey was able to state as its accomplishments, notwithstanding the cozy "Friendship Treaty" it signed with Nazi Germany in 1940.--MarshallBagramyan 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

oh sure, and as usual u are an authority on the matter and lets not forget my secret bank account through which I get Turkish government transfers in reward for spending my time arguing with the likes of you! Your remarks suggests to me that you know absolutely nothing about history and this period in particular. So what if those fools got medals? If the sacrifices were so great and all they got in return was a stupid medal, I would be very concerned! lutherian 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...and let's not forget that 1942-1944 tax on all non-Muslims in Turkey, with particular pressure being put on the Greeks, Armenians, and especially Jews... -- Clevelander 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow man, what a huge burden compared to the deporatations and wholesale slaughters in France, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and many other European countries where they were more than willing and eager to participate in the murder innocent souls. Even in neutral Switzerland things were far from being kosher, but ofcourse, in your mind we can pardon them because they are christian and it was just a moment of folly and nothing else. What a joke! lutherian 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And cut. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It's not for debates. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. If you feel so strongly about this issue, I suggest you take this discussion elsewhere. But wikipedia is not the proper forum for it. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Azeri Genocide by Armenia

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

ASALA

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

A new paragraph in the Article "Patriocide"

I would like to open an important discussion, in my opinion, to first have it in the attention of the editing community and then think of how to give birth to it in the article.

The issue is about the direct connection of a Genocide of a native population resulting to Patriocide, the loss of not only population, cultural heritage, real estate, financial and other property, the "genofond", the future development of a nation and all other losses which Genocide results into, but also the loss of (call it either of these synonyms) "native land, homeland, fatherland" as a whole or partial.

I do think the article about the Armenian Genocide does lack this issue, which would be a proper, value-adding addition to it. Surprisingly it is missing as a separate paragraph.

Please state your comments and let us have it discussed first. I am sure not only I but also others will have a lot to contribute to the paragraph. Aregakn (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should! Keep in mind that you should also mention how Armenia uses so-said Armenian Genocide so that they can unite the Armenian Diaspora by using Patriocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to insure yourself as a disruptive commentor and editor with propagandist goals and 0 value-adding, you are succeeding! Aregakn (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why are you mad at me, I am supporting you, of course with some additions. Whee, Patriocide!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, I don't see anything in my books on the Genocide about "patriocide". What sources do you have? Sardur (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean the term itself. You surely see in them(the sources you have) the loss of their (the Armenians) motherland due to the Genocide and this is what I thought valuable to concretise. Likewise the human and cultural losses, in a separate paragraph it would be correct to mention and describe the (partial) loss of the historical motherland of the people. I wanted to concentrate on the idea of having a separate paragraph about that issue and hear oppinions, and then start to work on the paragraph and it's wording.

As for the term "Patriocide" itself (or, as I call it, Patridocide), it seems to be relatively new for use. The phenomenon of full or partial loss of the historical land (fatherland, motherland) due to a genocide seems not to be coined with a separate term by many. Though I am sure the use of that very term, if required, can be found in different publications. Aregakn (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it "Patriocide" if you like, or simply call it "Consequences", but there could indeed be a section explaining the many direct and indirect consequences of the Armenian Genocide, one of which is the exposure of more than half of the world Armenian population to assimilation. --Davo88 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting idea to have that section. The so called Patriocide indeed is a consequance of the mass slaughter. And of course so is the assimilation of the nation and the loss of identity both, in the republic of Turkey and the refugies out of Turkey. This is a concequance of loosing the homeland so should also be included in the new chapter of "Patriocide". IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, it is clear that Eastern Turkey is deficient up to to this day because of the Genocide.--Davo88 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good! So we are already having some skeleton of the section: loss of motherland with no compact Armenian inhibited areas, towns, villages and assimilation of the population and cutting from roots and communities both in and outside of Turkey. Aregakn (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf94, do not make baseless and irrelevant comments and spam the talk-pages! Neither change the "UTC" to "UTW" near my comments. It's getting out of control already. Aregakn (talk)

I am really sorry for UTC thing. I erased that by mistake and appearently corrected it incorrectly. But I would be happy if you didn't erase my comments, you may not like my comments but you don't have any right to do that.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you, that talk pages are not for anouncements or comments but for discussion of changes, so if they are comments irrelevant to change (repeating not once) they are to be erased. Aregakn (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oookaaayy.... as I see, some "summer holiday" is around :). As the Muslims say "If Mohammed doesn't go to the Mountain, the Mountain goes to Mohammed". I promise I will be trying to find the academia researches for this issue during this week. It will require lots of work in libraries, but I'd like to do it. Guys, please come back from the holidays soon... I am even happy to hear "opponents" :). Aregakn (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

An article which more more or less corresponds to what you want to prestent, Aregakn: http://www.hayq.org/upload/files/Strategic_Consequences_of_Armenian_Genocide_%28Azg_Daily%29_ENG.pdf --Davo88 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... yes. Thanks! Yet will be looking for some more researches... pity couldn't find yet. Aregakn (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Historian

This article needs the points of view of many different historians who accept the Armenian Genocide and also the historians who deny the Armenian Genocide. My history knowledge accepts the deportation and mutual massacres that are done by independent irregulars. But of course I am Turkish and although I do not doubt my objectivity and knowledge, I can understand if it is doubted. However remember that many contributors of this article are Armenian. In any way our nations should not interfere. Now, I will suggest a historian whose researchs can contribute to this article, this historian is called Levon Panos Dabagyan. Mr.Dabagyan is a respected Armenian historian whose objectivity is not suspicious. He denies the Armenian Genocide as an Armenian without considering his personal and national feelings. He says “In 1915 genocide was not committed in Ottoman Empires. Those who claimed that genocide was committed must learn history much better. Armenian issue is very important fort he West. Because it has been used against Turkey. At that time people was exiled but not massacred. These operations must be regarded as issues originating from political aims and Kaiser’s Germany lied behind these issues”. According to Dabagyan, Armenians and Turks had lived together within the framework of good neighborhood for centuries until these events. But in 1915 Armenians who revolted in eastern Turkey were exiled. [14]
I hope that this particular historian can contribute and I would like to have more historians to tell the every aspect and everything of Armenian issue.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All your denialist scholars are "off the board" now. There is only 1 left who is 180 degrees compromised. Enough of making anouncements on talk-pages and spamming them!

You better don't rely on your history knowlegde that relies on your countries official point of view. Aregakn (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, even though I wouldn't like to say this, doesn't your history knowledge rely on your country's or your community's "official point of view"? We can both be affected, everyone can be affected. That's why I reccomend to have many different points of view of many different and objective historians and also to have official documents as evidences. In this way we can tell the everything of the Armenian issue in Wikipedia.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well well. Another denialist. I find it quite funny how they want to prove their point by bringing up an "Armenian scholar" in the arena. Here's an answer to you.First of all- he is not an Armenian. He lives in Turkey and has claimed numerous times that he is Turkish.If he doesn't wish to be Armenian, why do you forcefully put that label on him ? Secondly, Dabagyan is not your average historian. If I were to grade him I would probably say...maybe "unsatisfactory " ? He has not read the history if he claims that massacres didn't occur because even his "daddy Ataturk" admitted that killings did occur,how people were burned alive, villages burned, mass killings, so on and so forth. Dabagyan is no historian and will never be one for his lack of knowledge. Where was he at the 1990 Historic Congress when all the other denialists were present? Let him get out of elementry school faculty (where they obviously since 2003 included the denial in the curriculum, in other words -official denial) then maybe I will consider debating with his fictional perspectives of 1915. --ArmenianPhD (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.ArmenianPhD, initially I would be happier and you would be more civilized and respectful if you do not mock with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Secondly, Mr.Dabagyan tells that he is Turkish even though he is Armenian because according to Atatürk and many civilized and respectful Turk if you feel that you are Turkish you are Turkish without considering your genes. If Mr.Dabagyan can say that he is Turkish without considering his genes, he is probably the best one to not care where he cames and keep his objectivity. But of course he is just an initial offer as a historian who can be helpful to this article. I would also be happier if you cited "even his "daddy Ataturk" admitted that killings did occur,how people were burned alive, villages burned, mass killings"--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf94, my civilized manners are displayed in my talk, so I suggest you reread my paragraph. Whatever was in my paragraph was a fact and not an insult. You deny the Genocide, I called you a denialist, Ataturk is the "father of Turks" so I referred to him as "daddy" and lastly Mr. Dabagyan is not someone I can refer to as Prof. or scholar as he has not read vital facts of those years and whatever he says is so simple, one sided, and not fully displayed that it can be taught to a 5th grader or what not as a way of propoganda. As far as your reply is concerned, you have a natural ability to concentrate on unimportant things as I have noticed in various postings of yours. His genes do not concern me whatsoever, but you keep repeating "the Armenian scholar this.. the Armenian scholar that..."He calls himself a Turk, then he is a Turk ! I have much to say but youre just going off topic, so stay on topic and stop hanging from words and giving suggestion on how to refer Mr. Dabagyan or give me lecture on bilogical genes as Im a fully focusted on history. P.S. if youre going to reply with non important message, please dont bother ( this is not an insult). --ArmenianPhD (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Lonewolf. The propaganda does not have an effect on me as much as it has on you. Points of views cannot exist about facts. They can exist about details accompanying those facts. you never presented any single reason, issue that would claim those many references in the article are 1 POV all together, and then to say you need to have other POVs. What makes you believe state propaganda rather than thousands of scholars (professionals in their field) world-wide? Is it a tendency you cannot get rid of?? Tell me, are those the scholars, who signed the statement to the US Congress in 1985, that you mean by telling "professionals" and "objective"?

So, 2 questions:

What reasonable basis do you claim the references in the non-objective?

Do you want to consider the scholars that made a statement to the House of Congress of the USA as objective?

Aregakn (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, everyone's objectivity can be questioned in such a sensitive article. I would like to remind you that also many professional and objective historians don't recognize the Armenian Genocide, Mr.Dabagyan is one of them. Besides scholarship is unreliable because Armenian scholarship says that so-said Armenian Genocide is real but Turkish scholarship says that so-said Armenian Genocide is not real. That is not logical if scholarship is reliable. The references are unreliable because they belong to nations which were the enemies of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. They needed a proof that Turks are fierce killers whom should be stopped by the superior West. Besides different points of view of professional historians are not POVs. That means either they collected different evidences or they interpreted the evidences differently. That's why there should be more historians, so that we can interpret their work.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV but this is not based on academia. I do not know wha Dabagyan you are talking about and yet I didn't see any references to reliable academia. One more VERY important thing, if you are willing to discuss the issue of Genocide or not Genocide, then please read the beginning of this page and cease it once and for all. Any such discussion will be removed immediately as mentioned above about what is not to be discussed on this talk-page. Aregakn (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing the existence of so-said Armenian Genocide. I am telling that we should add the works of historians who deny and the ones who accept the genocide and inform Wikifans about their work and let them judge the existence of the Armenian Genocide. So that noones thoughts affect Wikifans' thoughts because there will be so many aspects of this subject that people can choose the one which they are convinced that it is right.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Move propositions of related articles

Dear editors, please discuss the proposed moves (change of titles) of the related articles of Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. The propositions are Armenian Genocide recognition and Armenian Genocide denial accordingly. they are discussed on the talk-pages of those articles talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Aregakn (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why it was called "Denial of the Armenian Genocide is that the relation between the three words is clearer. Saying Armenian Genocide denial could also mean "Genocide denial by Armenians" which of course does not make sense. Same thing for the recognition article. --Davo88 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think here comes the help of the term "Genocide" to be with capital letter, which makes it a name of the very genocide it is about. I was also looking into the article of Holocaust denial just to see an example. Aregakn (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a section in this article. The article on "Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations" is a mix of WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE and arguing the primary case. Much of it is redundant repetition of only the pro case. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Guy, I agree there was an AfD on the subject, article should be merged on the parts that are not WP:Cristall Ball. Clearly the whole thing is WP:CFORK,WP: POVFORK,WP: Synthesis,WP:SOAP and a probable WP:COPYVIO. Nothing prevents for nominating again for AfD. --Hittit (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you must not be very serious, the page is 145 kilobytes long, many material need to be shortned and articles created on them to make the reading overal more easy. Are you seriously asking it to be merged with an article that long? Undue? The subject of reparation is probably one of the most debated item in the agenda and this since the 20s. I think a rename would be more accurate, which would cover the material loss as well as the demands for reparation. Ionidasz (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A rename is discussed on the talk-page and was agreed to (or with no negative comments) by almost all in the deletion.

As for the comments of Hittit, those are irrelevant. SOAP, SYNTH, COPYVIO etc. (he was told before as well) are not to exist in any place in Wikipedia. He clearly has only 1 goal, to get rid of the article with 0 reasoning. Neither could/did he ever bring any such issues.

The Article of reparations is an essential separate topic with all its atributes as the international law, etc. and by itself constitutes notability. I see no bases for even proposing a merge neither is there a POV to claim forking. Aregakn (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to merge the reparations article with the Genocide article. If there exists a distinct article about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, an issue that is closely related with the reparations issue, why should the reparations article be merged? Besides, the AG article is extensive enough in itself, and it would be unwise to lengthen it even more. --Davo88 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... nice way, Guy. U did well to cover disruptive editing of Hittit in the ANI and u also bring his issues up. I wonder if this is coincidence.

What are the "pros" Guy? what is in reparations issue to be pro or anti or POV? I hope u can explain ur position and u were interested in discussion rather than only rising the question Hittit wanted and leaving. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done As per above discussion, the result is not to merge. The tag will be removed from the article Armenian Genocide reparations and the result noted on its talk-page. Aregakn (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey's Offer

The Republic of Turkey oferred to have a historian committee who will search the Armenian and Ottoman documents. The goal of this committee would be to find the truth about the so-said Armenian Genocide by using historical documents. Unfortunately the Republic of Armenia didn't accept this offer. This fact can contribute to this article by stating the Turkish actions to solve the Armenian issue.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough announcements. This was discussed with you already! Re-read above!! Aregakn (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember discussing this with you but I wanted to make a part for it this time to have many people's ideas about it. This fact is useful because the Turkish nation is accused of so-said Armenian Genocide and it is important for Wikifans to know the Turkish efforts to solve this issue that continues nearly for a century.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do remember discussing it, you'd have to have remembered, that Armenia did not refuse and offered even a wider variety of issues, not only historical, to be addressed, to which there was NO response. But now, knowing it's not the case, you once again claim that Armenia refused...

In addition, the recent protocols between Armenia and Turkey, that were in very much favor of what Turkey wanted, were signed. Armenia made its way through several instances, required by the constitution, and brought it to the parliament very fast. More than 1 year passed and Turkey has done 0! There you can see an inter-governmental commission which will have 2 governmental sub-commissions: on legal issues and on historical issues. Tell me, isn't the latter the invitation that Turkey sent? A commission to discuss historical documents and issues (probably in the legal aspect)? And tell me if Turkey has ratified it?

Now tell me, considering both of these issues, do you have any single reason to bring it up here or you should better bring it up on the articles of Turkey to mention, that Turkey refused any friendly relationships with Armenia, including a governmental sub-commission on historical issues? Enough is enough of these lies, Lonewlf! You, I do really hope, probably speak of these issues not seein the whole picture and not willing to see, and, if so, you aren't the liar but the state propaganda you believe in. Aregakn (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, the title of this discussion is wrongly chosen by lonewolf94. It should be about turkish lies and fake agreement signing with a goal to delay the international recognition of the Genocide. This issue should be discussed and decided to have it in this article in a summary and a bigger part in the recognition article. Good point Lonewolf94! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Aregakian, first of all I want you to be calm and not change my discussion's title again. It is rude. I remember the Armenia's offer of the "wider variety of issues". Turkish Prime Minister did not respond to that because that offer of "wider variety of issues" has already reached a verdict that Turkey is guilty of the so-said Armenian Genocide. This offer did not give a chance to Turkey to defend themselves. As you would know the crimes are tried to charge the crime or to find the existence of the crime. In a trial you got the defendant and the prosecutor and also the evidences. But if you reach a verdict before fully interpreting evidences and listening the defendant it would not be legally fair. However Turkey's offer wants to have historical evidences from both nations and to interpret them with historians. This is more fair. Though you have a point in there, Turkey's offers are not totally sufficient. The best way to solve this issue is to have a "really" objective international court which will have Armenian and Ottoman documents as evidences, historians as witnesses and Armenian and Turkish delegates as the prosecutor and the defendant. But Turkey has an effort. I would also like to remind you that Mr.Sarkisyan canceled the Armenian-Turkish protocols(which was better for Armenia because it stopped the Turkish embargo) at 24 April 2010. I hope that these information can be helpful to Wikipedia.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1st of all, I did not change the title.

2ndly, I asked rhetoric questions to let you see how inappropriate your topics might look like when having all the info.

3rdly, I appreciate you speak for the government and assume what you claim as facts, but this isn't what others do.

4thly, you say that Armenia has it clear. Not only Armenia has it clear but all the reputable academia and scholars.

5thly, if Armenia has it clear and there'd be no discussion of it, it is as a minimum hypocritical from Turkey's side to offer this.

6thly, offering 1 thing and refusing that same thing makes Turkish government look even more hypocritical, as a minimum.

7thly, this is not the article of Turkish external politics so either you speak of the genocide, by ceasing using turkish denialist expressions like "so called genocide" etc. (because even for an unaware reader it is clear, how tendentious your comments, issues and most probably edits are/will be). Or propose such edits on the external politics of Turkey and I will add to it. Aregakn (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenians are rejecting the committee which was suggested by Turkey. It means Armenians or their supporters are escaping from something. (they escape from the TRUTH?) Maverick16 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, this discussion is being stupidly political. How about a solution which is fine for both of us and useful for the article. Lets add Turkey's offer and Armenia's offer in a section and give short facts about both of them.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't know that Maverick. They might have their own reasons or you are right. Unfortunately we can't discuss it but we can let people think that if we can ggive this fact to them.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Maverick16 has to restrain from racistic announcements and also learn to read discussions before making announcements for spamming talk-pages. Aregakn (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No relevance to the genocide. Your target article should be "Turkey Armenia relations". Aregakn (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf, I don't know what your goal is in deleting my answers to your comments or signing my comments as your own, but be careful in these. Aregakn (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't say that we should have paragraphs for these offers. We should may be mention them in the Relief section shortly since it is relevant to the efforts to solve this issue. But you are right the main relevance is "Turkey Armenia relations".

I do not have a specific goal, sir. Unfortunately those things happened unintentionally. When I wanted to sign my comments, the program put my signature to somewhere else. Sorry about that, I will try to make sure that it will not happen again.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. As you seen, I didn't ask about it when the "re-signing" occurred but when the deletion of my comment did as the 1st could be an incident the 2nd - not. Aregakn (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh! rereading your comments I noticed that you yourself stated the intentions of Turey to abuse those protocols to deny or delay the international recognition of the genocide. A point I noticed in my comment to yours at the Recognition article of the Genocide. You said just what I was telling. Allowing Turkey to abuse the protocols for that goal for the 2nd year be an act of sheep not learning the wolf only wants to eat them and doesn't want to be friends. Please don't have that a bad idea about Armenia's politicians. This is a lesson they will not forget when dealing with Turkey and this was a chance for Turkey that will not come back so easily. Aregakn (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets say that Turkey's offer is hypothetically delaying the recognition. Wouldn't you delay your marking as a slaughterer without any valid evidence and objective trial? Besides can you, sir, show me where I said such a thing. I have only said that history comittee will either fasten the recognition or destroy the recognition of so-said Armenian Genocide, Turkey is taking that risk and their offer should be mentioned as well as Armenia's offer. Besides the political meaning of these offers should not be important for us, the fact should be important.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, reading it once again, I misinterpreted your comment about "embargo" in the comment: "...remind you that Mr.Sarkisyan canceled the Armenian-Turkish protocols(which was better for Armenia because it stopped the Turkish embargo) at 24 April 2010." I connected it to the 24 April in your sentence, the Genocide commemoration, because the anouncement of the president was made not on the 24th but on the 23rd, and so interpreted "embargo" not as a blockade but the tries to "block"/prevent Obama referring to the Genocide as such in his speech as the US president.

Well, maybe for you the delay seems hypothetical, but it is also factual and it is also perceived so by the international community and Armenia alike.

As for the agreements being good for Armenia, we can tell these things only comparatively. The border closed by Turkey is more a problem for Turkey in the sense, of the EU (aggression towards neighbors), and it is always marked in all the Eu or EC papers as negative only for Turkey; economically Turkey is more powerful and has more resources/products to export, than Armenia so in the sense of taxes and developments Turkey loses financially more; Armenia's economy was totally devastated because of it, but now Armenia lives and develops without that border open, Armenia doesn't depend on that border at all! Turkey's eastern regions do not develop because of the Genocide's devastating heritage, Armenia develops as it was. So in the sense of what Armenia "losing" something, it's not true. Only didn't gain. Turkey still loses, because the EU will stay closed until the border is closed. And it is in the interests of Turkey to change the perception of Europe towards it, as a non, military, totalitar, theocratic through reforms in legislation (including the genocide issue) and opening the borders. As for Armenia, the only gain is 1 railroad, transportation rout, that yet needs to be renovated and there'll be years until it starts working. One more thig, for everybody Turkey looks like "the master which obeys the doggy", as Turkey itself, losing a lot from the blockade ang gaining nothing, does it for Azeris, and it does not at all look like Turkey is a country with a political will to do even for it's own good, leave alone for the good of the region, Europe or the World. The picture of Turkey being a non-reliable partner in the international arena fades as it changes its intensions after signing a document. So again, it is obvious, that by Turkey delaying the ratification, Armenia loses at least not more than Turkey, leave alone that all the economists and politicians would understand, that it's much more, than Armenia loses.

As for S. Sarkisyan recalling the documents from ratification: he always announced, that as the leader of the political majority, he assured multiple times publicly, that Armenia will ratify them if Turkey does it in proper timing. The protocols passed the required conclusion by the Constitutional Court and a with a lot of opposition, it went into the Parliament, waiting for Turkey for 1 year. Once again, let you or Turkish government(s) not think Armenia would become part of their games and their puppet in the international arena. If Armenia showed that it is ready not to put a precondition of the Genocide recognition and reparations but wishes to establish neighborly and friendly relationships to be able to discuss things with the neighbor "sitting at a table and drinking tea and coffee with Rahat Lokhum and Pakhlava" and not in courts or arbitrage. In the civilised world courts are a need only when there is no mutual agreement. Turkey was the one to refuse this above mentioned. And don't worry, if it continues, the time for ONE MORE court will come again.

If you have read the article and my previous comments in our (me and your) other discussion, you should have remembered, that there was a court in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish government was found guilty. There was also an international court by the Allies and the Turkish Government was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. There was a court according to the agreement of all the sides and the arbitrary court even decided some reparations to be given to Armenians/Armenia. If you wish one more, there will be one more. But this time it will be a little different, because the gains of Turkey on the bases of what it got from the Genocide (economic grouth, taxes from the lands and property in the Turkish territory etc.) are multiplying year-by-year. And by the way, the losses of Armenia in this sense (including but not limited to the blockade/embargo) are also increasing, and those will become a subject of reparations by the 2nd court. Believe me, Turkey itself doesn't want it or if it does, then the State heads must be only deluding its people and probably themselves. Any more qustions? Thank you, thank you! Aregakn (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah of course they did so! But when Ottoman Empire was under Allies command, that cout would say anything with the persuasion of Allies. Besides I never said that thre were no Armenian deads. You know my terms in that. It is most likely that your international court was affected by the dead Armenians and did not investigate the government ties. And in that court were there any Ottoman delegates, even if there were, how much "sick man"s delegates work. If it was so certain they would have a newer court but of course this time Turkey is more powerful.

But as I said this is stupidly political. There is this fact about Armenian Genocide, I mean Turkey's offer, so if it is a fact related with the article it should be in the article.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous comments. Learn about the Nurenberg Trials first. Aregakn (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And also, claim the UN is b***t because it is established by the winning allies. Pah Aregakn (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Lobbying in US during the Genocide

I suggest the topic mentioned in the heading be added to the Armenian Genocide page or it can be added to "Relief" section of the general page because most of those relief organizations was the aftermath of tireless works of numerous prominant high level individuals. There is overwhelming amount of information in several books that I recently absorbed. I will post some resources real soon. Meanwhile, please inform me if it is a good idea. Upon acceptance, please add more information if possible.

--ArmenianPhD (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea to make the article even bigger and less readable. The article is about the genocide and not the work of different organisations. It can maximum be linked to the Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

During the Genocide?? I hadn't paid attention to this part... But still I think the maximum is a sumarry we can include. Don't know... Aregakn (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, yes, during the genocide several Armenians in United States tirelessly worked closely with numerous government officials, including Senators and what not. They religiously sent letters to the president and those were official letters that were actually being read by the president himself.

--ArmenianPhD (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... would you see it under the dividion "Contemporaneous reports and reactions" with a separate sub-title? Aregakn (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn, I think if we commence working on that, we can get tons and tons of reports, for your mentioned subtitle is vague, which is good because my mentioned topic lies in your mentioned subtitle. --ArmenianPhD (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) For instance, for reactions I can add letters,discussions,etc. from various countries. As far as the reports are concerned, I have hundreds of pages of reports from various sources by many government officials.

Great. then let us all see the content you want to present and start working on the paragraph. Aregakn (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will get right on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianPhD (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

First of all I know that Khojaly Massacre has nothing to do with this article. But if you go to the article, you would see two sections as "Armenian Perspective" and "Azeri Perspective". Wouldn't such a thing be useful and helpful for this page like "Armenian Perspective" and "Turkish Perspective"? --Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

2 different issues: 1 is well known, researched and historically proven, the other hasn't gone through even an official investigation being a relatively recent event and has very many hidden sides and no confirmed evidences for those. No comparison is even possible.

Once again, the perspective of Turkey on this issue, as being the side not interested in the truth, is on the denial article. Aregakn (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You say that they are different but these issues have only one difference and that is the fact that this time Armenians massacred Turks. The Khojaly massacre is well known because it is recent. And this proves also that you are not really that objective-has very many hidden sides and no confirmed evidences-(you think so)

But of course this is not the issue you say that the perspective of Turkey on this issue, as being the side not interested in the truth, is on the denial article. OK, but that site only gives the impression of Turks killed Armenians and Turks are now denying. This is totally biased.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Khojaly article as a whole presents what happened according to both sides (which is why links supporting both sides are presented), whereas this one simply presents the Armenian genocide. And also, the so-called "Armenian perspective" is not a simple perspective only limited to Armenians. It is the reality accepted and proven by historians, specialists, and also by Turks, whereas the "Turkish perspective" only has support in the Turkish government, in certain circles in Turkey, and from a couple of historians who are friends of Turkey. --Davo88 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Proven to be "friends of Turkey" by their own peers, not only claimed to be "friends". Aregakn (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Khojaly Massacre article simply presents Khojaly Massacre but that article respects perspective of the other side.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense if you don't read comments of others andrepeat the same thing. It's clear refusal to get to the point. Aregakn (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is a monolog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term Genocide

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

---

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

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

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

And it seems you know not what he said about the term he "invented". It was directly connected to the Armenian Genocide. Have a look: [15] Aregakn (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments about the term are irrelevant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This matter seems more than clear:

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

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

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

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

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

For those, who see not well, read not well, lack some more attention, than needed, or a will to "click" I recommend once more to have this downloaded and heared to know WHAT and HOW Lemkin qualifies the subject of this article: [16]

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

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

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

Turkey to expel Armenians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alfred de Zayas Legal Opinion

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

page move

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

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

Cultural losses

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

Geoffrey Robertson

The article currently says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is one but there are more if you look around. Any practising lawyer who suggests that the British Governments is wrong on this issue is likely to be considered controversial, add to that his suggestion that the Pope should be tried by the ICC.[17] and that the regicides of Charles I were right,[18] etc etc is likely to be considered controversial. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems PBS doesn't understand what the difference of a controversial figure and a controversial book or work is. He didn't bring even any valuable criticism about Geoffrey by any of the latter's notable peers. There was nothing stated but his personal opinion about Geoffrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.34.109 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)