Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Propaganda Article

I think this is a masterpiece propaganda article since you can not even add smallest information that is against the genocide issue even if they are solid facts. 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.97.143.100 (talk • contribs).

I imagine that if you wished to add factual data on the Mars Rover in an article concerning Ethnic dances of Lithuania it might be deleted as well...even though your information might indeed be factual...the issue is relevancy. However, I should point out that there are many factual items concerning the Armenian Genocide that can't all be included as it would end up being a hugely long and unorganized mess - this isn't the place to just dump any fact - even if (slightly...arguably...perhaps...etc) relevent - there is the matter of it being necessary to convey accurate knowledge concerning the overall event and not be the repository of all known knowledge or information pertaining to it. Additionally, this article is intended to reflect accepted mainstream academic views and not fringe ideas or such that are not widely accepted as they are (righly) seen as being a political stance and not a truly unbiased academic one. Furthmore I would argue that a great deal of what is being presented by certain parties as "factual" is in fact uncorborated speculation or perhaps observations whose factualness is mightily in question (such as the claim that Armenians were being sent to "fertile lands" way down in Syrai some where or the [entirely unsubstantiated] claim of a "major rebellion" occuring and such. And speaking of facts...it is a fact that there has been no legitimate counter to the claim of genocide. It has been repeatedly proven that this is the correct and (entirely) FACTUAL term and that no legitimate (mainstream) argument exists that refutes such designation. As long as certain contributors are hung up on calling this "so-called" or "propoganda" then they have no business editing this document as they are here representing a fringe and overwhelmingly unaccepted viewpoint that has no basis for inclusion in this article other then to acknowledge the existance of such views and to briefly explain the history of why certain parties might hold this view and who those parties might be. As for your other "so-called" facts - they should or should not be included in the article based on their scholarly/historical merit and on their relevancy to the issue at hand. And any supposed "facts" that cannot stand up to proper scrutiny - as each and every item presented/contained in the article as it stands has done - will just have to be relegated to (unworthy) points of dispute discussed on this talk page and unless a compelling case can be made (and so far no dice) that is all they will be. kapiche? --THOTH 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is heavily one sided and you, THOTH, have played a key role in making it so! Please stop trying to argue otherwise because everyone knows this to be the case! Capiche? lutherian 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you - its nice to get credit for doing something right these days.--THOTH 01:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to add ref to Hellenic Genocide

Armenian and Pontic Greek Genocide are contemporary events by same actors. I attempted to add a ref to Pontic Greek Genocide in Armenian Genocide article but this was reverted by User:Aecis, no explanation. Why can't people learn about both topics at once? User:erxnmedia, 1 November 2006

They can, that's why there's already a link at the See Also section at the bottom of the article. I apologize if I didn't make that clear. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, I've suggested adding a link to both events to the template {{Armenian Genocide}}. For more on this, see Template talk:Armenian Genocide. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 85.146.98.224

Moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Why Doesn't Armenia Take the case to the International Court of Justice?

If Armenia and the people of Armenian origin are so confident on legal grounds that the Ottoman Empire has commited an act of Genocide against them, why do they not take the case to the ICJ, but instead simply exert political pressure on parliamentaries who vote not in consideration of historical realities but for election concerns.

Secondly, The British Propaganda Blue Book and the Malta Tribunals' outcome is not at all mentioned in any of the articles. The British Propaganda Blue Book published non-factual accounts in order to mobilize anti-Turkish public opinion. The Malta Tribunals were held AFTER the end of WWI when Istanbul and the Ottoman government and archives were under ally control. Despite that, all of the accused officials at the Malta Tribunals were released( in a sense similar cirmumstance to Nuremberg, because the Ottomans were defeated, and their capital city under occupation).

Thirdly, the Article mentions that Ottoman Officials were sentenced to death in their absences. Please provide the sources of such information.

Final note on Orhan Pamuk: That guy is a novelist, not a historian: he is accused to have said such things in order to win the Nobel Prize as soon as possible.

The Article on Armenian Genocide has been blocked, but the readers are left with a totally one sided account. Open Source may create problems... such as an organized mob imposing their views and calling all others trying to voice an alternative viewpoint as "Vandals." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.226.12.239 (talk • contribs).

There are no specific reason?

I could not see any reason for a genocide. Could a reason be added in order to complate the puzzle? Because without a reason, a genocide is nothing more than a self-destruction of the brutes.(88.240.114.200 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Exactly. There is supposed to be a murder, so there should be a motive. Whatis the motive ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.16.198 (talk • contribs)

Amongst the motives was significant debt the Turks owed the Armenians. Racial and religious hatred come into play as well, but the most obvious motive would be conquest itself. Remember that prior to 1915, Armenia encompassed the entire eastern half of what is now Turkey. That's plenty of motive. The US took its current landmass from the indigenous people of that continent on the same basis, and with far less lack of land. --JT 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Marshal said: "Armenian lobby is not out to get you. We're tolerate of almost everyone's beliefs...just so long as they do not stand opposite to reality "

This is like saying that everyone is free to speak as long as they say what we want them to say!

What reality? Your reality is a lie to me, I am sorry but I am entitled to say what I want. If you don't accept what I believe to be true, that is your opinion, BUT you are NOT allowed to say that I cannot express it. WHO THE HECK ARE YOU?

Orhan Pamuk ( despite all the criticism in Turkey) was still free to speak his mind in Turkey. I do not believe in what he says, but I believe that he should be free to say such things, and I should be free to try and disprove him. This is Communist mentality, Wake Up ! Armenia is a fee country now, the USSR has collapsed, yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.12.239 (talk • contribs)

Armenia has nothing to take this situation to the court because first they attack and killed thousand of turks during 1914-1918 otherwise they wish to take this to the court.they are guilty and they know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.192.112 (talk • contribs)

Lack of background information

There is an absolute fact that the article misses the background info about the reasons for the genocide claim. Wikipedia under the title of being an encyclopedia should have a liability for the claims which accusses a whole nation. This is serious. There is no evidance to claim such a accussation, that is not acceptable under the constutitions of every nation in the democratic world and laws of universal ethic. Thus people reading in Wikipedia would see that claims as a factuality. please be careful. I dont want to be accussed for something I did not do (and also my nation).(cantikadam 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

well that's what happens when a topic gets hijacked and used for propaganda purposes. If you look at the history of the article section you will notice a well organized revert strategy designed to keep the topic completely one sided. lutherian 06:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Asides from the "Foreign Corrboration" section, much of the article is incomplete and indeed, sucks. More input is needed by editors.--MarshallBagramyan 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you whined less often and actually contributed to the betterment of the article by challenging the sources or the facts put forth in the article.--MarshallBagramyan 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

cmon Marshall, you know very well that its impossible to contribute here because anything that does not fit the propaganda, irrespective of the quality of the material, is kept out. One gaping example is the constant vilification of Turkey and Turks, I have not come across a single positive remark on Turkey which is why I strongly believe that the objective here is certainly not to create a well balanced article! lutherian 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please Lutherian, the big bad, ominpotent Armenian lobby is not out to get you. We're tolerate of almost everyone's beliefs...just so long as they do not stand opposite to reality :) --MarshallBagramyan 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you expect positive remarks or Turkey or Turks? You generally do not see positive remarks about Germans in Holocaust and WWI articles, yet that hardy makes the articles unbalanced propaganda (neo-Nazis, probably, would disagree, but they do not hold the majority view). In any case, wikipedia deals solely in facts, without room for positive or negative remarks (outside of quotes). Any fact can be added as long as it is generally accepted to be true (and not obviously exaggerated). As for the article "accusing a whole nation", I though that modern Turkey claims to be a completely different nation than the Ottoman Empire. No reason to get offended when the records give a poor impression of Ottoman Turks.The Myotis 03:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide is more then proven and accepted withing the scholarly community. While I agree that much more should be incorporated into this article concerning the reasons for the Armenian Genocide - in no way is there any legitimate postion that this is a so-called or even disputed genocide. This has been discussed at length in the archives of this talk page. Lemkin's definition of the term genocide implicitly included the Armenian experience - as one of two defining examples of the term - the other being the Holocaust of WWII. Additionally the vast amont of eyewitenss testimony (archival and otherwise), confessions, convictions and so on and so forth clearly proves the case. There is no reasonable alernative to the depiction of the events and actions that the CUP undertook towards the Armenians and the results as anything other then genocide. So please get past this already. I f you have any useful (and factual/supportable) data, information and perspective to add - please by all means do so. But calling the Armenian Genocide "alleged" or So-called" or whatever just isn't going to cut it. And it has already been clearly pointed out that to do so and to give over any substansial amount of discussion to such - to exclusively Turkish and direct supporters of Turkish party line positions - any kind of weight - beyond just the mention that Turkey and its supports (are alone in) denying...well this is inconsistent with Wiki policy...and in fact to a certain extent there is already too much of this in the article as it now stands. We need real facts and analysis - not a repeat of Turkish propoganda which has little or no bearing on reality.--THOTH 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong information(deception on purpose) about Ottoman Laws..

"However, unlike Muslim citizens, Armenians, Greeks, other Christians, Jews, and other minorities, were subject to laws which gave them fewer legal rights and they were subject to numerous limitations in legal rights in the empire" Taken from the Armenian Genocide Page..

The above is totally wrong;

"In this system, where interchange between groups did not really homogenize differences between them, how was law, for example, organized? Historians have argued that the pre-modern legal system of autonomous communities -- where communities were defined as autonomous because they had separate juridical status -- was replaced by a system of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims because of a variety of factors, including Western imperialism, and was formalized with the reforms of 1839 and 1856. In your opinion, was there interaction between the communities in the legal sphere before 1839?

There certainly was. First of all, there were the Muslim courts, the sijill courts, the ruling qadi, and so forth. But the problem here is that the religious system that we call Muslim was in fact a complex web of the shar`ia, its reinterpretation, and evolution. In other words, it was not a fixed system. Islam has had a very sophisticated, changing juridical tradition that evolved with the demands of the ruler, and systems of "secular" law were incorporated and domesticated into the Islamic framework. So there were Muslim courts where a Muslim would go, very frequently on issues of private litigation like divorce, commercial litigation, or generally for issues arising between two people. But these courts of law did not deal with what we would associate with a "constitution." In a system that proclaimed difference as normative, it was absolutely understandable that each group had its own separate system. Difference was also sanctioned in this way. Therefore, Christians and Jews would go to their own courts of law, and even though religion was the language of the court, it also incorporated many outside influences. There were all kinds of crossovers, and the system was not set in stone. Since people acted in different ways and often in self interest, Christians and Jews frequently went to Muslim law courts to be tried because this might have been more beneficial to them. There were thundering rabbinical responsa and church rulings against this, but non-Muslim religious leaders were never able to put a stop to this practice. Even the threat of excommunication, which was at times invoked, did not deter everyone from it.

How would a non-Muslim be tried in a Muslim court?

You could be tried in two ways: according to what was accepted as general law in Islam or according to the qadi's interpretation of what, for example, the Jewish religious law would say. You can imagine how threatening this was for the rabbi or for the particular Christian religious leader, since there was a lot left to interpretation. However, what reveals the fundamental paradigmatic divide is that the opposite could never have taken place. A Muslim could never have gone to a Jewish law court and have the decision of that court be valid. That would have been completely unacceptable, because ultimately power was unilateral, and, with certain qualifications, Islam was ultimately the hegemonic system. So hegemonic, in fact, that if litigation involved a Muslim and a non-Muslim, then they had to go to a Muslim court. The non-Muslim court was not accepted as having jurisdiction over Muslims."

The above is taken from http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/rodrigue.html

Xargoth 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say that non-Muslims could not go to Islamic courts. If an issue arose between an Armenian and a Muslim, or a Muslim and a Jew, the Muslim's testimony would overrule that of the Jew's or the Christian's since neither of their testimonies were admissable in court. If however, an issue arose between two Armenians, the Armenian Church would have to settle the dispute or the Greek Orthodox Church would have to settle issues amongst Greeks, etc. If you feel the text implies a misleading notion or otherwise might confuse the reader, feel free to edit and clarify it. --MarshallBagramyan 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the art section

Diamanda Galas has released a very moving CD called Defixiones - Will and Testament. It's about the genocide and is sung in many languages. The booklet that comes with it has translations, background information, as well as photographs. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Diamanda_Galas 62.49.26.197 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Robert

LOL, thats right, we should add this (Personal attack removed), LOL lutherian 05:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--140.180.4.109 17:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)== Where is Tashnak? The motive? ==

I find it pretty interesting that Tashnak isn't once mentioned in the whole article.. As it is the very motive of the deportations of the Armenians and some armed conflicts.

Being based inside Russia, they have formed to liberate(Ottoman soil) Western Armenia. In other words they opened war to Ottoman Empire, From the East. A War, to claim the Eastern Ottoman Soil. As Ottoman was fighting in the west(balkans), in the south(North Africa, midle East) it seemed very easy to the Armenians to ressurect their kingdom(I must add, which is just an excuse for the imperial forces just to get rid of Ottoman as a big power in the middle East, to later execute their *Middle East Project(tm).

Anyway getting out of topic there. I guess i made my point

Xargoth 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An insightful comment, rather spoiled by the fact that in 1914, just for once, it wasn't the Russians who attacked the Ottoman Empire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean here?

Angus please - this comment has nothing to do with reality. By 1908 the Dashnak party within the Ottoman Empire was more or less completley alligned with the CUP. The Dashnaks had great hopes for reforms promissed by the progressive elements of the CUP and with the restoration of the constitution. This is just typical Turkish slanderous and untrue speculation/accusation. It has no bearing on reality. --THOTH 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the realitiy...there are so many proves. You can see it in this report: the The Manifesto of Hovhannes KATCHAZNOUNI First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic. This report is also never been mentiond in the story. Take a look at www.armenianreality.com There own president is telling everything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.199.18 (talk • contribs)

Agnus, Russia has a history of expanding into Ottoman territory as they had annexed previously ottoman territories, such as Besarabaia, Crime, the Caucasus, and their intention in WW1 to expand still deeper. I suppose those who attacked and captured Trabzon, Van, Erzinjan, Erzurum and countless other cities in the East were not Russians and their mostly east Armenian collaborators, but some extraterrestrials. Yeah, whatever fits into the picture of a one sided genocide that Armenians try to paint. --140.180.4.109 17:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk

Prove that he has studied history in any time of his life. Otherwise, don't delete the fact that he is not a historian at all.

Xargoth 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal point of view and that's editorializing. That's not what wikipedia is for. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You point out that someone who won Nobel Prize says Armenian Genocide did occur. But also refuse to say that, he hasn't studied any history in any part of his life?

If you accept this, i am going to officially complain about your behaviour. And biased moderation.Xargoth 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me, if you feel that is what you must do. But please be reminded that wikipedia is not in the business of source criticism. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the criticsim of the inclusion of Pamuk's comments is in any way valid. They are presented quite factually and in context. Are you claiming that he was referring to some other Turkish killing of 1 million Armenians and not the deaths that occured at the hands of the CUP/Ottoman Turks in 1915/16? Are you claiming that his comments should perhaps be placed in an articel about the Hamadian Massacres of Armenians perhaps? Is this your point? If not then I don't see that you at all have a point.--THOTH 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the inclusion of Pamuk's comments. The problem is Xargoth's pov criticism of Orhan Pamuk ("As he is an author and not an amateur or professional historian at all"), which I removed. Xargoth's point was against Pamuk's comments, not against the inclusion of them in this article. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What criticism? I am putting forward a fact that he is not a historian. Because the article implies his speech like its from an official historian. This is simple logic, he is NOT a historian who comments on a historic event. And you refuse to put it this way, and try to manipulate readers and make them think like this is said by an official. Simple as that. And no it is not criticism, it is information about Orhan Pamuk's education. Is it not so? Xargoth 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well...the article clearly lables him as a novelist...and he certainly is a public figure - and a Turkish one at that - and his comments speak to not only the events themselves - the killings - but the taboo within Turkey concerning commenting on such. This and and the fact that he was prosecuted for saying such I think are highly relevant to the issue. But I do agree - perhaps it is unclear to some exactly who he is and this could be better explained. He should be called - "Turkish Nobel Prize winning novelist" - and a link be given to the Wiki article about him - and perhaps it should be explained how his novels have tended to address social and political issues in Turkey that somewhat question conventional Turkish assumptions. Will this satisfy your complaints? --THOTH 17:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk and Peter Balakian have no degrees in history at all, both are novelists, who seem to have very good writing skills and be excellent skills in hyperbole and exageration. Which in itself is something very good, if only they would stop confusing it with historical science.--140.180.4.109 04:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

POV section: Orhan Pamuk

I have added a {{pov-sect}} template to the section about Orhan Pamuk. Sentences like "subjected to a hate campaign" and "returning ... in order to defend his right to freedom of speech" convey a point of view that does not belong on wikipedia. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you contending that he was not subjected to a hate campaign and that he did not return to Turkey to fight for his freedom of speech? I don't at all understand what you are objecting to...is there a factual dispute? --THOTH 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If I had contended that, I would have added one of the accuracy tags instead of the pov tag. The problem is that terms like "hate campaign" and "defending his right to X" inherently convey a political position. The term "hate campaign" for instance implies a concerted effort by an organized and identifiable group inspired by hate. The phrase "defending his right to" implies that what Pamuk faced constitutes an infringement of that right. While that may be true, that is not up to wikipedia to decide. That's something that every individual reader should make out for themselves. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. These terms are both accurate in terms of what occured and are entirely consistent with terminology frequently and consitently used in media coverage of these events. --THOTH 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you then please provide references? A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - here in Pamuk's own words - http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051219ta_talk_pamuk "If the state is prepared to go to such lengths to keep the Turkish people from knowing what happened to the Ottoman Armenians, that qualifies as a taboo. And my words caused a furor worthy of a taboo: various newspapers launched hate campaigns against me, with some right-wing (but not necessarily Islamist) columnists going as far as to say that I should be “silenced” for good; groups of nationalist extremists organized meetings and demonstrations to protest my treachery; there were public burnings of my books. Like Ka, the hero of my novel “Snow,” I discovered how it felt to have to leave one’s beloved city for a time on account of one’s political views. Because I did not want to add to the controversy, and did not want even to hear about it, I at first kept quiet, drenched in a strange sort of shame, hiding from the public, and even from my own words. Then a provincial governor ordered a burning of my books, and, following my return to Istanbul, the Şişli public prosecutor opened the case against me, and I found myself the object of international concern. My detractors were not motivated just by personal animosity, nor were they expressing hostility to me alone; I already knew that my case was a matter worthy of discussion in both Turkey and the outside world. This was partly because I believed that what stained a country’s “honor” was not the discussion of the black spots in its history but the impossibility of any discussion at all. But it was also because I believed that in today’s Turkey the prohibition against discussing the Ottoman Armenians was a prohibition against freedom of expression, and that the two matters were inextricably linked." --THOTH 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

more - (Hate Campaign) http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/08/turkey12174.htm http://www.granta.com/extracts/2638 "Either this was the last straw for Turkey's nationalists—a looseknit coalition dominated by old-guard secularists but also drawing support from fringe Islamist groups, the far left and the fascist right— or it was the opportunity they had been waiting for. Their supporters in the nationalist press went mad the next day, with some columnists going so far as to brand Pamuk a traitor and to invite 'civil society' to take steps to silence him. This translated into death threats that may or may not have been linked to fascist-nationalist paramilitaries. During this time Pamuk stayed abroad for a few months, returning from New York when the hate campaign seemed to be dying down." http://elenifergadi.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/orhan-pamuk/ Last year, following his remarks to a Swiss newspaper that “30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were murdered in these lands” he became the target of an official and popular hate campaign. He responded to this campaign with a statement that skillfully underlined the exceptional place of politics in literature: “Any Turkish novelist who fails to imagine the Kurds and other minorities and who neglects to illuminate the black-spots in his country’s unspoken history, will, in my view, produce work that has a hole at its centre”. http://acturca.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/orhan-pamuk-and-the-turkish-paradox/ "Orhan Pamuk, 53, Turkish author and this year. ... began talking about something that used to be taboo and a real hate campaign developed against me.."--THOTH 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

more - (returned to defend freedom of speech) - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E13F73E540C758CDDA90994DE404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fP%2fPamuk%2c%20Orhan "Turkish Writers Say Efforts to Stifle Speech May Backfire" http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/b918d372-13df-48d1-87b5-4f09ba9062e8.html "Turkey: Trial Of Novelist Orhan Pamuk Puts Focus On Freedom Of Speech" http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/12/the_orhan_pamuk.html "The Orhan Pamuk Trial: Turkey's Free Speech Test" and so on....yup - I'm afraid just like the Armenian Genocide issue in general - it seems that some of you Turks see it one way and the rest of the world sees it another...--THOTH 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He also said "Turkish Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, tried at home for commenting on the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, said on Friday a French law banning the denial of the Armenian genocide went against free speech.

"Freedom of expression is a French discovery and this law is contrary to the culture of freedom of expression. We must not pass a law forbidding freedom," Pamuk told Turkish broadcaster Kanal D in an interview from New York."[1] Maybe you want to add that too? Xargoth 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL - first you complain that he is no historian but only a novelist - now you want him inserted as a legal expert! His noteriety (and unique relevance)is for his statement concerning Armenians and Kurds killed. And for this an antiquated and very telling Turkish law was used to prosecute his declaration of a (officially taboo and hidden) truth that directly attests to knoweldge of the Armenian Genocide (by a prominant educated and wordly Turkish author who specializes in exposing shortcommings in Turkish public policy and society etc in regards to such things...whereas he is one of many who disagree with the French Bill - most for similar (Free Speech) reasons...and while his view might be an interesting footnote it is no where near as contextually noteworthy as his primary statements and indictment that are referenced in the article. I wouldn't really care if it is mentioned in the article - however it seems rather trivial as compared to the main issue...and again - it speaks to your (denialist Turks') desperation...--THOTH 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i just gave you another Quote of the novelist. As it seems you would like to quote him so much within the article. I thought, you should at this too. To prevent biased views of the person and add his quotes against Armenian Genocide laws and punishment too. I am just trying to make this article more objective.. Noting more, if you ask me, Orhan Pamuk is noone in the topic of "Armenian Genocide" at all. But it is you who insist that he should stay there. So be it, then add his quotes that are against your views too please..Xargoth 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote the first one and I think I'll pass - I've already given my reasons and I think that they are clear. --THOTH 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

THOTH, if you want the terms "hate campaign" and "defend his right to freedom of speech" in the article, then attribute them to Orhan Pamuk (e.g. "what he saw as a hate campaign") and reference them. The current wording ("Subjected to a hate campaign, he left Turkey, before returning in 2005 in order to defend his right to freedom of speech") makes it seem as though wikipedia says that it was a hate campaign, which is not our task. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally unbelievable and unacceptable

"(The source calls it Turkey. Whether it should do so is another issue, but that's irrelevant in this case. If we quote, we should quote as it is said, not as it should have been said.)"

"On 24 May 1915 the Triple Entente warned the Ottoman Empire that "In the view of these...crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization ... the Allied governments announce publicly.. that they will hold personally responsible... all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres."

"Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 from the Anatolian remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire by national hero Mustafa KEMAL, who was later honored with the title Ataturk, or "Father of the Turks."[2]

Well, i am sorry but the sources you are using on this article are a total joke. Check the years again. And look here;

1- Triple entente warns Ottoman Empire 2- In view of these crimes of Turkey(?) 3- They will hold personally responsible all members of the Ottoman Government

You can simply see that addition of "Turkey" makes the whole sentence look ridiculous. If there was a country named Turkey in Anatolia at that time(1915) then how come Ottoman is Responsible for its actions?.

If it did not existed at that time, have these allied governments saw 8 years in future and wrote these comments?(I would also like to see a link to this original documenent mentioned here) I am pretty sure the original document can not contain such information and is changed for propaganda purposes and this changed data circulates through the internet.

In fact, if wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, it should really stop containing Contradictive Information like "Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic whose political system was established in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire under the leadership of national hero Mustafa Kemal Atatürk."

The wikipedia itself says Turkey is founded 1923. And then contain information and accept sources saying things such as it is condemned for crimes against humanity in 1915. This is really pathetic..

Xargoth 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious (with this waste of space) or are you really so clueless? The Ottoman EMpire was widely and popularly known as "Turkey" for many years prior to and during this time - both in the press - as well as with other Government officials and such...this is a non-issue...--THOTH 20:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"the sources you are using on this article are a total joke". Tell that to the sources, not to me. We are quoting several books here. If those books use the wrong name, that is up to them. But if we were to correct their mistakes, we would misquote them. Please follow this link, to Genocide in International Law: the crimes of crimes by William A. Schabas, the book referenced. It says:

The wartime atrocities committed against the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire had been met with a joint declaration from the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia, dated 24 May 1915, asserting that '[I]n the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the allied Governments publicly inform the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for the said crimes all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of its agents who are found to be involved in such massacres.'

If you have a problem with this fragment, please contact Mr. Schabas. But that's no excuse for us to change his work as we see fit. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For example - from The New York Times (April 28, 1915) - WASHINGTON, April 27.-An appeal for relief of Armenian Christians in Turkey, following reported massacres and threatened further outrages, was made to the Turkish Government today by the United States." and from the The Independent (February 28, 1920)in an article by the former ambassador no less - By Henry Morgenthau - Former Ambassador to Turkey - "The belief, held by some persons, that Turkey has repented and can do not further harm, is without foundation. The group that led Turkey into the war on the side of Germany is now in the saddle. The Turk has not been disarmed and these leaders are now aiding the Tartars. Kurds and Bolshevists are urging them on to kill and rob the surviving Armenians at every opportunity. The deportations and massacres during the war were not spontaneous uprisings of unorganized mobs, but were the working out of a well-plotted plan of wholesale extermination in which regular Turkish officers and troops took part as if in a campaign against an enemy in the field." --THOTH 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"If you have a problem with this fragment, please contact Mr. Schabas. But that's no excuse for us to change his work as we see fit."

It is not I who is suggesting changing anything. --THOTH 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why my indentation was at the same level as the indentation to your reply. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it is now...wasn't then (when I replyed) - but thats OK - we are both on the same page with it now.--THOTH 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually i do have a problem, and after some research i am positive that anything related to those sources should be removed from the article. As it is totally aimed at mixing the words Ottoman Empire and Turkey to cause confusions.

Hey THOTH can it be a coincidence that your source for that claim is www.armenian-genocide.org/4-28-15-text.html .. Funny.. As i said simply propaganda to create confusion on something that is so obvious...

Xargoth 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - but to most people - now and then - the use of Turkey and Ottoman Empire was/is entirely interchangable for the period prior to the rise of Nationalist Republic of Turkey. There is no issue. It is you who are trying to make one in claiming that these names should be distinguished when in fact at the time and even now in hindsight they are interchangable. Check out some maps of the period for instance as well as all sorts of correspondence and such during the war etc - --THOTH 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I'm sure that this was Ambassador Morganthau's intention - to confuse the readers and get them to connect the Ottoman EMpire with the (then as yet unfounded) Republic of Turkey. He must have already know that the RoT would attempt to distance itself from the OE by this claim - "see we aren't called the same thing" - but he anticipated this - and joined in the international conspiracy to defame Turks continuously through the years...and of course the whole invention of the Armenian Genocide is all part of this nefarious plot! --THOTH 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should check out Turkish War of Independence so scroll down a bit. Yeah on the combatants part you will see "Ottoman Empire" against Turkish Revolutionaries. And those revolutionaries overthrown the Ottoman Empire government and formed the Republic of Turkey.

And also in Treaty of Lausanne Turkish Revolutionaries, didn't recognize and accept any responsiblities left from Ottoman Empire. And the treaty is signed. Not by Armenia because Armenia was obviously invaded by Soviet Russia, and there was not a country named Armenia after the results of Turkish-Armenian War.Xargoth 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh thats an easy one. Lets say that Enron changed their name and shuffled around a few corporate officers - would that company then be free of its past obligations? FYI - not only was a very substansial portion of the Nationalist Deputies who founded the Republic of Turkey left-overs from the Ottoman CUP - but so were the military forces, the financing for the Government, and a large percentage of the infrastructure and personal of the new government/nation. And FYI - Ataturk assumed the Ottoman debt for the new Republic...a clear sign that he accepted continuity - excuses aside by folks who didn't want to be associated with (recent) past atrocities that had the rest of the world so horrified...--THOTH 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The name Turk and sometimes Turkey was used by Europeans. The offical name of the Empire was The Ottoman Empire and people as well as officals in that empire regarded them selves as Ottomans and that Empire is no more but as a part of your hate campain feel free o use Turkey name in this Circus after all thia article is complete rubbish...

Xargoth do not waste your time here Friend. It will not serve anything focus on the article. No one cares about debate here. By the way Thoth the newspaper that you cite also called the Attacking army to "Turkey" as Russian/Armenian Forces. As usual Armenians only see what they wish to see.neurobio 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, neurobio, where does it say that? A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i find it interesting to see that wikipedia moderator do not question a source. And accept it as fact no matter how ridiculuous and contradictive it is. I wonder if he is going to think the same about the thousands of sources that say completely otherwise that i will soon add here. We will see...Xargoth 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questioning a source may be vital, but quoting a source properly is equally vital. We can never put words in the mouths of others. If they said something, that is what we have to go by. We may never change it as we see fit. We may change spelling errors, but that's as far as we can go. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Asides from nitpicking,you're grasping for straws. Turkey and the Ottoman Empire were nearly syonymous terms at the time. No one is confused on who we're referring to in the article.--MarshallBagramyan 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article SHOULD be marked POV

The points of turkish republic and majority of world who do not accept a genocide on the WW1 events are totally ignored out in this whole aricle.

This whole article is based upon Armenian and alike sources.

This whole article is watched and anything added for the Turkish Stance, is instantly removed for ridiculous reasons. "Like a promoted stance by Turkish government in its governmental websites, are not accepted their view for being written by Americans" which is why it is exaclty put there, the idea of not only us(Turkey and Turkish people) defends this view.

This whole Article is written in a way to force this events look like just like Holocaust. Even the railroad "Going to Mecca", the holy place of the muslims, is pointed out like a deportation tool and a way to concentration camps. (what concetration camps?)

The whole article, should also be looked upon by some higher authority, as this article doesn't contain a language acceptable by an encyclopedia. But it is totally aimed at showing Ottoman Empire and Turkey are same things, they are guilty, and they are guilty in a monstrous and obvious way. Even mark not accepting this claim Denial at a sub-topic (Denial of the Armenian Genocide) Denial is a word used for refusing the obvious. Strong word chosen there, considering %90 percent of the world's population doesn't accept the term Genocide.

And unlike mentioned here, many scholars don't accept the term genocide (including Americans and French scholars)

This whole article should be reviewed and its language and way of reflecting things edited. And this whole article should be marked POV, as obviously the article doesn't contain any Turkish Government, and those countries which reject the term "genocide" views on the matter. And this whole article is an accusation of the Armenian populace.Xargoth 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment ...anything added for the Turkish Stance, is instantly removed for ridiculous reasons. "Like a promoted stance by Turkish government in its governmental websites, are not accepted their view for being written by Americans"...

If you look at the article, you'll see that what you added was in a section called "The position of Republic of Turkey." What you added was not the position of the Republic of Turkey, but the position of a group of historians. If you want to add it to Armenian Genocide#Academic views on the issue, you can do so. But stop whining, and stop making such ridiculous accusations. There is no conspiracy. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer discussing this with you, your prejudice and biased moderation is obvious in this matter. It can be seen from how this whole article ended up not showing what the Turkish authorities really say about the event. But they are prjected like they do not accept any event in the WWI.

The only thing reader gets out of the article is, Turkey rejects something Armenians claim. And this claim is shoved onto the reader that it is accepted by the world but only not Turkey. Which is totally vice-versa...Xargoth 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article goes to Arbitration, see you..Xargoth 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The acusation/depiction of these events as "genocide" is not an Armenian "claim" - it is what the vast majority of historians and scholars of this period believe it to be - and these beliefs are supported by incredible amounts of eyewitness and first hand evidence and cooboration. It is entirely false to claim that most of the world or such rejects these vents as a genocide (and we have been over these facts numerous times - please chack the archives of this discussion page). Your complaints are entirely without merit. These issues have already been substansially addressed (check the section linked to above regarding peer review of these issues). The denial of the Armenian Genocide on the part of the Government of Turkey, a certain percentage of Turkish citizens, and by academics and politicians of Turkish ethnicity/citizenry and/or beholden to Turkey in some way is clearly a minority opinion that is not shared by practically anyone outside of this named little circle. (By Wiki rules and by common sense) Denial of the Armenian Genocide deserves no more (serious) treatment then denial of other genocides - such as the Holocaust. The prevelant view - and the vastly overwhelming accepted facts, evidence and scholarly positions conclude that these events constitude genocide and that the presentation in this article - while certainly arguably incomplete - is essentially factual and accurate and reflecting the widely predominant world body of knowledge and informed opinion. You are welcome to add to the content of the article by adding relevant (and accepted) factual information - but nitpicking and bringing up strawman arguments and denying the truth of the Armenian Genocide is not a constructive approach and you can expect no results with such. I agree that a much more comprhensive examination of the environment and circumstances and factors leading up to the Armenain Genocide is needed in this article - for a truer understanding of the why's and how's etc of what occured - however you need to get real about this and please make an effort to understand that yours is clearly a minority view and that there are very legitimate reasons for this being the case. Please try to think beyond your conditioning and (your nation's) propoganda and make an attempt to understand and accept the scholarship and actual relevant history regarding this subject. --THOTH 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Argentina, = 40,000,000 Armenia, = 3,215,000

Austria, = 8,250,000 Australia, = 20,500,000

Belgium, = 10,500,000 Canada, = 32,500,000

Cyprus, = ? France, = 63,500,000

Germany, = 82,500,000 Greece, = 11,250,000

Italy, = 58,750,000 Lebanon, = 3,900,000

Lithuania, = 3,400,000 The Netherlands,= 16,500,000

Poland, = 38,000,000 Russia, = 142,400,000

Slovakia, = 5,500,000 Sweden, = 9,000,000

Switzerland, = 7,250,000 Uruguay, = 3,400,000

Vatican City = 1,000 Venezuela. = 26,800,000

Wales = 3,000,000

TOTAL = 552,154,000 WORLD TOTAL = 6,555,436,000

Meaning only %11,87 of the world population officially accepts the term genocide for the forced relocation of the armenians.

Another good example of this biased article. Because according to you and this article, %11,87 means most of the world.

*Country list is taken from this very article.All population info taken from wikipedia.org, World Estimate is taken from[3]

Xargoth 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Xargoth - I'm not sure I get your point here - but again your desperation and lack of any real substansial argument or legitimate postion shows. Let me just ask you - what percentage of nations have passed an official resolution recognizing the Holocaust? I honestly don't know the answer...but I wouldn't be so simple minded to state that only citizens from nations that have passed a resolution officially recognizing the Holocaust do in fact recognize it and that citizens of all other nations (who have not passed such a reolution) by definition are Holocaust deniers. You don't believe this...do you? Do you really believe this sort of garbage that you post has any bearing on reality? DO you really expect others to do so? --THOTH 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust is accepted as a genocide and the first genocide by the United Nations. Keep your propaganda to yourself. Also i see that, you are not very eager to talk by numbers. Actually you are questioning the validity of the numbers. And then tell us to believe in this "most of the world" fairy tale of yours without questioning. No, never and not..Xargoth 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point you are trying to make here - it seems - is that if governments/nations have not passed resolutions recognizing the Armenian Genocide - then by definition they are denying that it occured. So OK - please liet all of the nations who have passed resolutions recognizing the Holocaust or recognizing the genocide in Cambodia or such. Are your seriously suggesting that if - lets say only 10 nations of the world have passed such resolutions - that we should believe that all of the citizens of the other nations of the world who have not passed such resolutions deny the Holocaust or the genocide in Rawanda or such? Your premis is absurd. Please stop wasting our time. --THOTH 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And your list Most of the countries, who accepted these claims, listed are the Allies of Armenia in World War I, and a side in the Treaty of Sevres don't you find it funny?Xargoth 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Which list of mine might you be refering to? I have not posted any list of countries - you have. I don't consider the issue of if a nation has (or hasn't) passed a political resolution about somthing that it proves that it has (or hasn't) happened. It is a secondary issue - that of attempted official recognition - attempting to pressure Turkey to recognize the truth. It is part of a political process not a historical one. And speaking of historians denying the truth etc and your claim that the Holocaust is 100% recognized - well in fact this is not true (and speaking of political stances think of Ahmadenejad of Iran) - "The debate over what happened to Jews in Germany during World War II remains acrimonious sixty-five years after it began. Jews say they were the victims of Holocaust. Most Germans say Jews relocated to Israel. For Holocaust scholars, the claims of the Jews have become incontrovertible historical fact. But many historians, both in Germany and the West, have questioned the appropriateness of the Holocaust label." - Middle East Quarterly - Fall 2005. I'm not denying the Holocaust BTW (Don't be silly to claim such) - I'm just pointing out that it is denied exactly as the Armenian Genocide is denied - (with the exception of the Government of Turkey taking active part in denying the AG) - in fact one can find many otherwise eminent historians who - for whatever suspect reason - have taken positions denying the Holocause or aspects of it. --THOTH 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - there was no nations called "Armenia" in WWI. You accuse us of being misleading regarding the designation of theOttoman Empire as Turkey - yet you bandy about certain mistruths claiming there was a nation called Armenian in WWI - and then also claim that all the countries who have signed petions recognizing the Armenian Genocide were allies of such a non-exstant nation...to even claim that all of these nations were even involved in WWI - as combatants or otherwsie - is even a bit of a stretch...but nothing that is beyond denialist Turks...just a minor streatch of the truth compared to most (baseless) assertions.--THOTH 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Allied forces intention was to form one in the Treaty of Sevres, and added Armenia inside the document as you know, i don't feel like refreshing your history knowledge about the whole topic at this time, go make a research have fun..Xargoth 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter how much you try, you still name a "Discussed matter" as Truth to your own liking. By saying this, you also point out that any claim that it was not a genocide is a lie. How is this neutral? A neutral article would contain, the views of Armenia and people that thinks the same as Armenians. The views of Turkey and people at their side, and then let the reader decide who is right.

But you prefer imposing your own views, by applying a cencor on the Turkish arguements and documents within the article. And force the readers to read a story written by Armenians without confirming the validity of the sources or their neutrality. Without pointing out obvious mistakes of the sources. With trying to manipulate the Words Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey to your liking. One can go on forever... Xargoth 18:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The rules of Wikepedia regarding unsupported minority opinions are clear on this matter I should think. The peer review and other related discussions claerly indicate that 50-50 treatment is in no way appropriate for this article. The Armenian Genocide is fact. Denial is wrong. It is incorrect and it is presenting a minority view that is not at all widely held - particularly in scholarly circles. You do not have a valid point of complaint. Sorry.--THOTH 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were claiming, Turkish arguements are accepted by a minority all the time in this discussion and in the article? There is some serious problems with this reasoning then! Either correct one in the article claiming this is accepted by majority, or correct the article itself, prmoting the minority view of Turkish side upon the Armenian one... Xargoth 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For Aecis: Lets read some Newsform USA newspapers around 1915

Armenians love presentin Newspaper articles as if they can prove a Genocide. The sad thing for them is these newspaper (all being non Turk lovers) also informed about Armenian activities (in a sterile and supporting way.) still the terible truth is there...

Thanks to google. Sorry for typos it is from original site... Knowing that our Western friends who are so sure about this genocide do not like spending time reading articles I copy pasted them for you. Plesa also check the original..

London, Sept. 26. -- Several Armenian refugees from the districts of Bitlis and Musch lately have managed to escape the Turkish lines and secure safety in the areas occupied by the Russo-Armenian forces on the Transcaucasian front. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/196791442.html?dids=196791442:196791442&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=OCT+28%2C+1895&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Armenian+Outbreak+in+Bitlis.&pqatl=google

ARMENIANS JOIN RUSSIANS. Detachment of VOLUNTEERS Arrives at TIflis for Army Service. Jan. Reuters Petrograd correspondent transmits a message from Tiftls stating that a detachment of ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS had arrived there from The VOLUNTEERS received enthusiastic reception ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS evidently are serve with the Russian Army in the campaign against whose troops 1 -were advancing in the direction of Tiftla http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20volunteers&img=MHMeTXbgRjuKID/6NLMW2iKhszZw+mRbxysu+x0+A2stH2PpSCCxDA==&site=google&fileType=jpg

ARMENIANS FIGHT FOR RUSSIA LONDON, Jan. 7 Router's Petro- grad correspondent transmits a mes- sage from Tiflla statin? that a detach- ment of ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS had ar- rived there from America. The volun- teers received an enthusiastic recep- tion http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20volunteers&img=olJOpJH/3rKKID/6NLMW2lJMbHyvLOkb1yfed0KLIKMtH2PpSCCxDA==&site=google&fileType=jpg

ARMENIANs Join Russians Rome, Feb. received here states that the Russian line in Armenia la already from 30 to CO miles west of Erzerum. Tho Turk- ish rout surpasses all imagination. No unit remains intact und the debris of the army in flight is being mas- sacred by the Insurgent population. All iible-bodled ARMENIANs who escaped from Turkish conscription havo enlluted In the Russian army. Grand Duke Nicholas, It Is reported, iiaa now Annenlan VOLUNTEERS under his command.

RUSSIANS LANDING ON ARMENIAN OOAST London, Fob. cover of warships' guns, Russian transports aro now landing large forces of men on the ARMENIAN scacoast, 70 miles cost of Treblzond, encountering only feoblo resistance. The troops are being transported from Batum, where they huva been held In readiness for several months. Tho fact that they were not used In the earlier stages of the ARMENIAN campaign Icn'ds to the belief that the grand duke has under hie com- mand much larger forces than was at flist suspected and plana to push an aggressive campaign through Ar- menia, driving westward toward Con- stantinople, or to the southwest to join the British In Mesopotamia. If he decides upon the latter course ho JB expected to push forward at once against DJurbeker, 140 mllca southwest of Erzerum. I waa announced today by the yvnr office. Forced withdrawal by the-Bit rrom tho edge of the mine which they recently http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20volunteers&img=Z8Lm5Wnx+nuKID/6NLMW2ubZE2U/KEFw8WwtY2DkjkwXq0yv/h4TLw==&site=google&fileType=jpg

ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS active pi Eviration to rase their' contingents from about 6000 tc much simpler When war I roke large number lerks mercl.il hese with fen full division of about 15000 Five Ar- ninri detachments are now from Batnm to Tabriz. It Is to unite all but one In a, single boxy Volunteering U proceeding brisk y bavins; begun even before Turkey en tered the war Anncnlni sul ocrlptlo is defray alt coats and. the "Van Is in the hands of the Arm n Ni tional Bureau, In whlcl) all elements o the ARMENIAN race re present http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20volunteers&img=j91JOupTOn+KID/6NLMW2vcL9Ji9+KNAuoCOdT1CCRIV46+Pk4ztcA==&site=google&fileType=jpg

ARMENIANS PARTICIPATED. ___ j (By Pres.-O that ARMENIAN volunteer-. mEny of thfm from thli ruiintty. particlpuiei! In the i British victory over the Turks In Pal- rjtin.-. under General Allenby. was contained In cable messages received today nt the headquarters here of the ARMENIAN National Union of America. liny Hoad http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20volunteers&img=P9SpTvomPU+KID/6NLMW2vF26zVgVr7JZ/JDlnQCpmaYtpzP3A1HFw==&site=google&fileType=jpg

Face some Truth about Hamidian "Massacres". From your beloved sources.

TBE SASSOUN MASSACRE Proof of the Assertion that ARMENIAN Revolutionists Caused It. TESTIMONY OF REV. GYROS HAMLIN A. Protest Against Americans Help- ing EnRland to Realize Po- litical Aspirations in the East. Fo Uie Editor cf Tlie JS'eia Itorle In our previous letter we affirmed that the Sassoun troubles were brought about by the criminal efforts of ARMENIAN revolu- tionary committees, and that no reliance whatever ought to be, placed on ARMENIAN testimony and assertions We now propose to prove these two affirmations, not by Is to say mony, but by American and namely, Christian testimony man who, above all, gave the most explicit and true account of the Ar- menian revolutionary movement Is the Rev Cyrua Hamlin himself On the 23d of De- cember. or, In other words, only a few months before the revolt of bassoun, he published in The Congregatlonallst a truly prophetic statement the perusa

http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=armenian%20parties&img=W0CtXEq/mhWKID/6NLMW2rkRTgtNhK8IpIAuIhfHOPyj/jxEJp8v9g==&site=google&fileType=jpgl

According to a dispatch from the Vali of BITLIS, Asiatic TURKEY, seventeen vil- lages have been destroyed by ARMENIAN insurgents in the district of Sassuu. More than GOO ARMENIAN families 1 ave taken icfuge at Mush, a town in Eillis. 1904 http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingItems/GLP/LP8.aspx?search=russian%20army%20and%20bitlis%20and%20turkey%20and%20armenian&img=wUP6BEk4rpmKID/6NLMW2kVA00NjCE767rPe1bQ3tOLjcEt17V09ww==&site=google&fileType=jpg neurobio 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious that this kind of sources and information is left out in this article. That's why i am at the process of official complaints to the required channels of this POV, biased and hijacked article, going up to the top until this is dealt with..Xargoth 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

These supposed news exerpts are unreadable as presented - the site is a pay site restricting access so the validity of presented articles cannot be confirmed - and lastly and most importantly - I don't see anything here that has anything at all directly to do with the Armenian Genocide...so again I fail to see your point - and only see that you are desperate. What exactly does this post of yorus do to advance the issue of improveing the article? I entirely fail to understand. This is just spamming as far as I'm concerned. --THOTH 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also - just curious here - would you consider the presence of Jewish partisans fighting againsts the Germans in WWII as proof that the Holocaust never happened? --THOTH 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt to compare the Nazi extermination of the Jew population in Europe, with the Armenian forced relocation and deaths by the issues addressed before, is completly disgusting. And undermining what Jew population has gone through, so you priorotize your own propaganda over a United Nations accepted issue. a Pathetic claim ..(this wasn't edited by THOTH if you thought so, my mistake on using the wrong format to say something) ~~Pathetic~~ Xargoth 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "completely disgusting" is your denial of genocide. In no way do I, have I, or would I ever deny the suffering experienced by European Jews in WWII nor would I ever make apologies for Nazis/Germans who have commited such barbarous acts...yet you do so in regards to the CUP/Ottoman Empire and Turks who commited acts equally as barbarous and equally as offensive to humanity. You are a pathetic individual.--THOTH 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So googles new historical news archive of scanned newspapers is not reliable when it doesnt suit armenians. OK...

Armenia, published in Algemeen Handelsblad, Amsterdam on Tuesday, May 25th, 1920 But one priest of the old Franciscan order, a simple old priest, who without doubt was at the side of the Christians, shook his head, when I was cursing against the Turks:

“You are making a mistake, he said. The Turks alone are not guilty. Yes for someone coming from Europe and who would like to see prosecution with European habits and customs, would punish the destruction of this population as a crime. But it is not the entire truth that you have heard and seen. One has to see and understand these happenings through a pair of Asian eyes/glasses: that here are two populations with age-old hate and disillusion, who are going at each other. There are here two different mentalities, the Turkish and the Armenian, and both are saying one of them has to be destroyed. Yes in 1915 it were the Armenian people who were destroyed. Everything was being done to work against them and they were defeated. But are you convinced that the Armenian people would not have done, or did, the same acts in similar circumstances? I have my reports from missionaries, dispatched through my (Franciscans (ed)) group in Beyazit, Van, Erzurum, Erzincan: from these reports I know that in 1915 then the war with Russia started, that it were the Armenian people, who behind the back of the Turkish army provoked the revolution and caused the depopulation of the Turkish villages and settlements and flattened them to dust (destroyed them ed.). The consequent results that happened later in Turkey, were only as a consequence of this first adversary position of the Armenian people. I admit that that terrible things happened; er has been so much blood shed as never before. But innocent were the Armenians not at the root of this blood bath. And when the Turks then went further than was necessarym then the guilty part is not only the Turks, but because of the mentality of Asia, where the hatred of population against population goes deeper than with European populations and where war causes animalistic forms.” “See for example Trabzon. You have been the Armenian areas that were burned to the ground, but did you observe as well the Turkish areas that were burned to the ground? Did you notice the still fresh graves of the Turkish population? No! See, when the Armenians found themselves in the same positions as the Turks, when they celebrated to advance under the protections of the Russian army, then the drama theater of the year 1915 repeated itself, but then the Turks had to pay their debts. Wherever the Armenians discovered a Turk, he was slaughtered without any pity and wherever they saw a Turkish mosque, it was plundered and set afire. The Turkish districts were just as the Armenians before, burned to the ground. Now you go inwards and you will find yourself the traces of the war: Baykurt, Erzincan, Erzurum and Kars. You will still smoking ruins and you will still smell the blood of the corpses, but this were however Turkish corpses.” The Franciscan priest had told me the truth. For months I went through Armenia and Kurdistan and I found confirmation of what he had told me. After the retreat of the Russian army, that followed the Russian peace, took the battalions of the so-called Armenian army, the operation of the occupied Turkish areas over. During the Russian occupation the lives and possessions of the Turks had been protected. But what happened after the retreat of the Russians, is hart breaking. The small Turkish settlements were slaughtered till the last man and the churches till the last stone destroyed by the both generals Adronits and Murat. At that time the expectations of the Armenians were still in high spirits. Their plans were far reaching, and took into account the entire Turkish state. And they anticipated that they could finish with their enemy till the last man, woman and child. I have seen in Erzincan ruins, where hundreds of bodies of hanged Turks lay amongst these ruins. I shone lights into potholes, that were full of bodies. I have seen with my own eyes that graves were being opened and where male and female bodies were laying over each other by hundreds. Who had done this. The victorious Armenians. These sights accompanied me on the far and long road through Upper-Armenia, Kurdistan till Russian-Armenia. And is it a wonder that the Turks, when they were again the victors, took revenge and in turn paid evil with evil? I have to acknowledge that during the advance of the Turks to Russian-Armenia the murders by the Turks continued. At the other side of the border of the Sarikamis the settlements of the Armenian population, that were numerous, were being depopulated with fire and iron (weapons)ed) The most bitter hatred against the earlier victors continued, now won, ind the most animalistic manner, familiar for the wild land of Asia. Our European brains do not understand this ungodly hatred, that agitates people against people in the worst gross crimes. However, we are not allowed to forget that Upper-Armenia is a country where the civilization can be compared with the ancient culture of the European people. The countries there are not nations, but tribes . And just like in ancient times, the sights of two tribes meant the destruction of one of them, so that still in the mountains of the Great Ararat even today one can not think of co-habitation, but of destruction. In the barren mountains of Upper-Armenia one does not understand compromise, but only fighting for life or death. The winner lives, the defeated one can only die. During my stay in Alexandropol (Gumru) the following happened, something that sheds a good light on the mentality of the people there. From the direction of the mountains of Alagoz one could hear on one day, cannon thunder. The Armenian population, who were living and fright and terror behind the Turkish frontier, explained to me this noise like this, that the English were advancing against the Turks. And they were living in their conviction that the Turks would be defeated within a few days. Immediately the rebellion occurred behind the Turkish frontier and the weak Turkish posts in the Armenian villages were being terrorized and abused in a most refined way.

neurobio 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny you present here the second hand testimony of a priest who likewise refers to second hand reports all of which is filled with generalizing assumptions far beyond what this individual could ever expect to knwo as fact. (Where are all of these reports he refers to BTW - why have we never seen such in all of these years?) You present this (reports of supposed atrocities and speculation of far reaching revolutionary aims of some Armenians) as some kind countervailing claims that obviate the truth of the hundreds and thousands of corraborated (and extremely detailed) reports as to the actual massive atrocites commited by Turks against Armenians - and of course the results - obviously Eastern Anatolia is now overun with Armenians and Turks are no-where to be found - etc - please. This somewhat suspect report - that has no real detail or corroboration - in no way can be used as any counter to what is and has been extremely documented and is known about what actually occured dusring these times. Werre there isolated incidens of Armenian violence against Turks - certainly - and did Armenian men who survived massacres and escaped to Russian lands and such join the Russians against the Ottoman Empire - certainly - were atrocites commited - absolutly yes...but we are talking about a genocide here - and none of this counters that claim - that truth - the facts of what occured on a massive scale. So stop wasting our time here.--THOTH 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moderators, who are so swift to change back corrections and any editing, to protect the current biased article suddenly falls asleep and dissappear on adding these new sources and information given in the "talk pages and discussions" to the article?Xargoth 18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One question, neurobio: why my name in the header? Do you honestly believe I'm in some sort of a conspiracy against you or anyone else? A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No dude not at all. you asked me for a source so I wanted to make sure you see my answer. I was also goint to write a notice to you but I had to leave. Sorry if it looked like that. No harsh feelings at all. also you are the onlz one aroun who can saz the article is true (in dutch) neurobio 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't check the entire text you posted, because the picture/scan is only a fragment of the article. But that fragment is translated correctly, although it still needs some grammar fixes. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the complete article as PDF if you wish. Or for anyone interested...neurobio 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Enough is enough. This talk page is turning into a flame war. That doesn't help wikipedia, and that doesn't help this article. Xargoth and THOTH, I strongly recommend the two of you not to edit this article for the rest of the day, and return tomorrow with a cool and fresh mind. Wikipedia is not Usenet or a chatroom. We're not rappers in a battle. There are no winners and losers, and there is no contest of who has the biggest mouth. Flame wars (like "You are a pathetic individual") are beyond anything that can be tolerated on a talk page. Cool down. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is my last edit for this day really, this ridiculous way of one-sided discussion is stressful.

And here is a bit of something to refresh your memory : "Out of curiosity, neurobio, where does it say that? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) " good night...Xargoth 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat offended that you inculde me in the same category as this individual who is posting massive amounts of irrelevant material and making spurious claims. I am countering his spamming with facts and valid, supported perspective. And I am asking the legitimate question - just what should be changed in the article - based on this drivel - and on what basis? I have clearly shown - on numerous occasions here - that there is no basis for his complaints about the article and he is adding nothing of substance here. I am protecting the integrity of the articel as it stands. --THOTH 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care why you're on this talk page. There is simply never an excuse to call someone "a pathetic individual." Such personal attacks have no place on wikipedia. Focus on the content, not on the contributor. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well OK - I apologize for breeching etiqute here - however I think that if a similar denial effort was made on the Holocaust page in Wiki you would have quite a few folks calling the denier a pathetic individual or far worse. For an Armenian - this denial is equally hurtful. The fact that it is officially denied by Turkey and that Turks come to sites such as this and elsewhere all over the internet and repeat these denials and offer these type of strawman arguments is highly insulting and hurtful to Armenians. I imagine if you took the effort to imagine yourself as an Armenian you might understand.--THOTH 19:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the post but i have to answer, the very same arguement can be put forward as being "It is very hurtful for the Turkish People who live in Rebuplic of Turkey to be accused of a crime against humanity.".. You are just saying what you feel on this issue, and how it should be handled and ignore emotionally any other arguements and attack them no matter how valid and documented they are.

And that is exaclty why i am accussing this article being biased and not neutral.Xargoth 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not start all over again... A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference being - of course - that the hurt of Armenians is based upon the obvious destruction of the ancient Anatolian Armenian nation/people as well as the specific destruction of and horrors experienced by our families and the fact that all of this has gone unrecognized by the perpetrators and thier descendents and the complete lack of humiluty and repentence on their part. One can only imagine how Jews might feel in a similar situation. And in fact there is quite a body of research that has examined the degree of psychological trauma of survivors of the Holocaust and even their descendents....the denial of the Armenian Genocide adds to this for Armenians who otherwise must cope with the same traumma. Should we likewise have sympathy for the poor Germans because they will always be known as perpetrators of the Holocaust. I'm sorry that you as a Turk are hurt by such a designation for you as well - but perpetuating lies and excuses dooes not change facts. --THOTH 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - no one has ever accused Turks living today with a crime against humanity. We are talking about recognition of historical reality. Of course - by actively perpetuating genocide denial one is perpetuating genocide itself. So if you feel that you as a Turks are being accused of such - then perhaps it is due to your own doing. I don;t see many Germans on the internet or elsewhere defending Hitler or the SS...--THOTH 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can all stop discussing other editors now. --InShaneee 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I "Spamming"

I see some people do not have a grasp of what "Genocide" is. Let me explain it for the 100th time.

According to Genocide convention Genocide is defined as:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

so as you see from this it seems as if any armed conflict could have been named genocide but see my bolds there it says a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. keep that in mind!

The convention leaves out Political and Armed groups! this means if Armenians pursued a political interest (like having an independent Armenia) and/or took up arms for this purpose (like summoning 40.000 Volunteers within ottoman borders) no matter what happens to them it can be named anything but Genocide.

Second The intent to destroy. No one here cares about Ottoman documents. However when it comes to proving the intent the only valid source is the Ottoman documents. Up to date no Document orignating from Ottoman Archives has been shown ordering Extermination, killing, or anything simmilar. Until that documet comes out (which will never come out of course) the intent can not be proven. Interestingly the Ottoman Archive is full of Secret orders, documets and telegrams ordering the protection of Armenians. (this is the reason why the Andonian documents were Forged. these documents are still presented in yerevan Genocide memorial long after it is proven that they are fake.)

So the articles I have posted at least indicates that Armenians took up arms against their country, which is for a political reason of course. The self defence theory collapses since before 15th april (which is actually the time when Armenian intellectuals (who were actually nationalist seperatists members of ARF) were arrested the real deportation is months later) the armenians rebelled and took Van, attacked bitlis and Mus. it also collapses as the Armenian book (along with many other sources) "Like one family armenians of syracuse" documents that "as early as 1890 and especially in early 1900s young immigrants, moved by patriotism, left their safe heavens in America to join self defence effords in Turkey and the armenian forces engages in conflict with the tatars." (you see I did not change the armenian prefix "self defence". this is so funny. who were they joining and in where...?). And the old chewing gum cliche claiming that armenians that attacked the ottoman empipre "were not from Ottoman empire" collapses along with many documents including this picture from the same source that clearly says these guys are from Divrig (still in todays Turkey) and it says they are from ARF. Now go and read ARFs manifestation and see what political/seperatist/Terorist group means. Or at least remember the flag "freedom/independece or death".

I do not even mention 500.000 Turks/muslims (according to Ottoman secret documents / also reported by Russian archives) killed by Armenian forces. So apart from the fact that numbers of Armenian casualities are highly infilated (according to Bogos Nubar the Armenian chairman some 600 - 700 thousand were deported/ in Lousanne peace treaty the Armenian population was taken as 1.4 mil) the genocide convention excludes Armenians and do not protect them. In terms of law there is no genocide. And this simple but Adamant fact is the reason why Armenians cant go to an international court and close the deal but instead spread hate propaganda whenever possible. So that one day It will be common knowledge... And they are almost there in west, thanks to 500 year old prejudices...

So why am I writing and @Spamming@. simply to show how crappy this article is...neurobio 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please answer the part as to 1)What crime had the elderly, disabled, toddlers/babies committed (namely what threat did they pose) and 2)which army, specifically, had its forces in areas such as Angora, Sivas, Konia, Kastamouni, etc. It would be really interesting to find out why the entire Anatolian interior, not the locations where the Russians or Allies were, has been disemboweled and why it is completely devoid of any Armenians. Only then can we even begin to address the haw-haw business of the 500,000 Muslims killed by Armenians. Honestly, introduce a source for once. Finally, only a minority of Armenians wanted independence, they wanted autonomy and equal rights, such as the implementation of Article 61 of San Stefano or 16 of Berlin. The "independence" garbage is just a myth propogated by the Turks.

And for the last time, an Armenian volunteer in the US, French, or British Army had nothing to do with the Ottomans Armenians. Enough with the illogical strawmans. Look at the date in the book too, it writes 1915 not 189(x).--MarshallBagramyan 01:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this Armenian book by V.Svazlian and see how they say they Fought agains Turks. do not be misslead by the "Türkce" it is a site also translated to Turkis by Armenians.

here are some copies for you with links knowing that you will not search and read...

http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=2 There were no Turks in our village: the government representative came with a gendarme and took his share and took it to the state. The Turks and the Kurds had nothing to do with us. The state was the owner of the land.

There were many Kurd villages in our vicinity. Till the deportation we didn't know the Kurdish language. There were three well-known fedayis in our village - Zalo, Manuk and Ghazar. They were devoted to their nation; they had rifles, guns, spy-glasses and their special uniform. Wherever they were needed, they would call them. The people loved and respected them. All three of them were our relatives. In 1907 one of them was killed by betrayal.

Tonakan Abraham Tonoyan, born in 1893, Moosh, Bulanekh, Hamzashekh village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=7

In 1908, in the days of Hurriyet, my eldest brother Aghadjan, who was already married to avoid military service, had joined Andranik's army, and, I don't know how, he had gone to Russia, and had been living in Yalta for seven years far from his family. After four years, in 1912, I was called to serve in the Turkish army, but I ran away and went to look for my brother. My mother Mariam, tears in her eyes, used to repeat: "Times are complicated, son. A new storm is being prepared for the Armenians. 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? Srbouhi Mkrtich Mouradian, born in 1911, Bitlis region, Khizan province, St. Khach village

As far as I remember the chief fedayi Gnel was my aunt's husband, who during the massacres of 1894-1896 had fought against the Turks, had gained experience and had organized his group of fedayis. He had got his education in the Aghtamar Monastery. In 1915 he had organized his detachment of fedayis consisting of two hundred men. By night they had attacked the Turks who blocked the Armenians' way, had raised a panic among them and had opened the way for the refuges and had escorted them to Van. http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=19

Tovik Thomas Baghdassarian, born in 1901, Van, Hayots Dsor, Hndstan village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=26

The Turks fought against the Armenians for thirty days. The Armenians were digging trenches. We had no experience, we didn't know what was taking place, but the children of Van knew a lot. When they brought us from Varag Monastery to Van, I saw at the Armenian quarters - in Aygestan, the band was playing "Our Motherland"1 to encourage the fighters. After thirty days, the Turks began to escape hearing the name of the Russians. As only a few men came back from Enver pasha's army, Andranik went and occupied Bitlis. The Russians didn't want to occupy Bitlis. Andranik occupied it with his volunteers.

Manvel Maroutian, born in 1901, Van, Berdashen village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=27 Our family was large: five brothers, forty-five people, we lived in a patriarchal way in peace and harmony. First, the men had their dinner, then the children, then the woman and then the maid-servants. Until the heroic battle of Vaspourakan, we were happy and joyful at home.

My father's brothers were - Panos, Martiros, Vahan, who was the mayor, Khosrov was a merchant, Marouth was the youngest. He and my father used to go to the eighteen villages and administered them. My father secretly brought arms to Van. Each of the five brothers had three rooms, which now are equal to fifteen rooms, and we had special rooms for the servants and the guests.

Arshalouys Kyuregh Ter-Nazaretian, born in 1905, Babert, Loussonk village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=75 At night our young men and my uncles took their arms and went away from home. Mother gave them a supply of provisions. We had one hundred horses; they took them out of the stables and rode off. Our youths went and joined Andranik's group in the mountains. We were relieved that the youth people had gone away from the village.

All Ottoman Armenian testimonies collected by one of your scolars to "prove" genocide. Sad thoug it actually disproves it.

and it goes like this forever.... Really... neurobio 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some armenians that wanted independence. do you know these parties

http://www.hunchak.org.au/aboutus/historical_program1887.html (see number 2)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation

You do not let us to feel sorry for deaths regardles of their nation with constant "Genocide" propaganda. We have problem with the name that is all

I'd feel a little different if they weren't misunderstood and placed in inproper context. Look at the Turkish Armenians, they don't believe a Genocide occured and judging by the way Turks react whenever one does (Pamuk comes to mind too), I'm not surprised. Why don't you ever quote the Armenians who live outside of Turkey and on what they had to say? I'm just quoting this from my page alone:

We lived in Dortyol. My father was called Sarkis and my mother Mariam. There were ten children including me and my brothers and sisters. The Turks collected all the people with their donkeys and horses. We were to go to Aleppo and Ras-el-Ain. But they started killing us on the way. They forced us to the Habur River and by the time we got there, there was only my mother and my sister and me left...My sister was eighteen and a man on a horse came and grabbed here and put her on his horse...And they started to beat my mother. As she begged them not to take my sister, the Turks beat her to death. I have always remembered that as she died, she screamed my name: "Haroutioun! Haroutioun!" Later an Arab Bedouin took me to his house and I stayed there for three years...

Haroutioun Kebedjian, 93, Beirut Armenian home for the blind, 2000

You're honestly bringing up Andranik? Andranik had fought against the Turks as early as 1912 in warfare. How exactly did Andranik and his Armenian volunteers who had been living outside of the Ottoman Empire for years have anything to do with the war in 1915? They had no pledged no oaths to the Empire and were simply fighting in conjunction with the Russians, like all subjects of the Tsar, including Russian-Armenians. That's very weak point to bring out.

Those parties vied for autonomy. Of course they would have selected independence if they were ever offered it but the whole "Armenians wanted independence" myth is simply a bait that Turks have fished to Armenians, and unfortunately, some of them have bought it too.--MarshallBagramyan 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat no one denies Armenians were killed and they were killed in thousands and much brutally. But not by goverment orders By corrupt Officers and people who want their money, land or revenge or by usual psychopats that exist every where especially in poverty times. Read also Hrant Sarians diary you will see that it was not the same for people deported from other reagions. http://perso.orange.fr/choisy/

Andranik and his man fough against ottoman army in Bulgaria with 500 to 1000 men. in 1915 he had 6000 to 25.000 men at his disposal almost all being ottoman armenians.

We are sorry for our deaths. You may not accept that I am honest but they were our people too. they belonged to this land. And most unfortunalety a bunch of "Intellectuals" and rich influenced men with ties to foreing powers brought destruction to our land. England, France and Russia namely. And Ottoman rulers weakness and panic and inadequacy (remember Enver pasa killed 90.000 Turkish soldiers in snow) caused immense damage and suffering...

Yopur claim of no government orders is ludicrous. Numerous studies have proven that such a sytematic and widespread and efficient cleansing of the entirety of Anatolia could not have been done without government complcity. Besides the process for such has been highly detailed and is known. Please try to read something other then Turkish Government propoganda on this issue. Your ignorance is really showing. --THOTH 02:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn...I fail to see how any of this at all counters the fact that the CUP/Ottoman Government carried out an extermination campaign against its Armenian citizens (which BTW is well witnessed and proven). No one is denying that after several generations of severe repression and predation that many Armenians became disenchanted with the benevolence of the Ottoman Sultans and a very many fled to more hospitable lands (away from Anatolia) - not surprising as the Ottoman's practiced a deliberate campaign of settling Kurds and other Muslims into traditional Armenian lands (Eastern Anatolian provinces) - and these - including many predatory nomadic tribes - were given free reign to steal from and harrass the Armenians in a deliberate effort to lessen the percentage of Armenian population residing in these areas through both settlement of non-Armenians into these areas (much as the Chinese are now doing to the Uighurs in Xinjiang province) and deliberate harrasment (including periodic massacres) of Armenians and this was intentional Ottoman policy - to force many to flee - and they did. Many of those who fled to the Caucuses were bitter at their past treatment by the Ottomans and Kurds and many entertained thoughts of one day liberating their ethnic kin either under Russian (Orthodox co-religionist) protection as the Russians had taken up the role of protector of Orthodox Christian rights within the Ottoman Empire (self serving motivation or otherwise). In both the Caucuses and in Anatolia many young Armenians were both disalusioned with the Ottoman represion and the lack of movement with reform. Many of these Armenians were (often foriegn) educated and became exposed to Western liberal political concepts which recognized rights of people over the tyranny of divine soverigns and such. These Armenian political parties primarily pushed for reform - but upon failure of such (and regression and widespread masssacre and increased institutionalized terror under Abdul Hamid)some of these groups took to violence. However they were never more then an inconvient sideshow that in any event never matched the violence being perpetrated against Armenian citizens by Ottoman Government sponsored terror units. By the time of the ascendency of the CUP and eventual re-establisment of the constitution the primary Armenian political parties had united with the CUP in common cause against the Sultan and most revolutionary actions had ceased. These facts are all documented. Of course there was still some low level violence between Armenian and Turkish and Kurdish groups that had developed feud like when Armenian communities were forced to defend themselves. However isolated instances of such violence and the presence of ethnic Armenians in the armies of ther Russians cannot be used to justify the state sponsored wholescale genocide that the CUP enacted and the record is clear - these actions by the CUP aimed to eliminate the Armenians were not due to actual military threat - but were a pre-planned political action brought upon by the CUP's paranoia and frustration over the continued disinegration of Empire and the inability of the CUp to stem it. The causes of the Genocide have vastly more to do with these attitudes and policies on the part of the CUP then they have to do with any specific actions on the part of Armenians. A great number of scholarly studies (based on the evidenc eo fthe develoing CUP attitudes, policies and actions) clearly prove this to be the case. For instance were Assyrians or Aegean Greeks agitating to form their own state or can they be implicated as supporting enemies of the Ottoman Empire? No. And neither reeally can Armenians - as a group - be acuratly implicated in such. Your efforts - posting a few articles concerning acts of violence or such planned or commited by small groups of disaffected Armenians in no way is either justification for the barbaric Ottoman State sponsored and carried out massacres, ethnic cleansing and ultimatly Genocide of Armenians and other Christain minorities in Anatolia during this period. A substansial portion of the Armenian population was slaughtered for no reason other then that they were Armenians - and this is clear - and charges that Armenians killed 500,000 Turks or anything at all close to that are just ludicrous and unsupportable on so many levels. So please give it up already. Your Genocide denying is highly insulting and hurtful and it is quite embarrasing for Wikipedia that it be allowed to continue here in the shameful manner that it has. --THOTH 02:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearifications... look THOTH... A piece of advice to you. If you wish to insult a person do it in a clever way so that it may hurt but always keep in mind that he may insult you back in a more decent,witfull and painful way. ok. for now you are saved...neurobio 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes well we were subjects but the majority of the Armenians never asked for the Turks to come occupy their land, to pay ridiculous taxes, to be forced to ride on asses rather than horses, to be ridiculed as a gavour, to have their women taken from their villages, and they never asked to be evicted out of the land altogether either. If you knew your history, the rich and wealthy Armenians, the amira hated the Dasnaks and the revolutionary figures. Why was it that this simple deportation did not allow any Armenians to return back? Why is that I have to look up to the Ahmed Rizas, the Euomer Chaoushes and the Damard Ferid Pashas in order to find brave Turks who were able to discertain truth and reality from the Triumvirates fictional lies?

Enver was poor military leader, that's true but he wasn't "panicking" in 1914, and neither was the Triumvirate. The Ottomans full well knew what was going to happen if they declared war against Russia since they were the ones who allowed the Germans to disguise themselves as Turks and bombard the Black Navy ports and thus enter the war. This was calculated to the end and it worked far too effectively and far too well.--MarshallBagramyan 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Turks came there 1000 years ago and at that times the worls was such a place... there is much exageration in this discrimination issue. remember that many armenians were in ottoman high ranks as officers, parliementers, and Foreign ambasadors much before "hurriyet". one Should ask how these people preserved their language, religion and national ideas for 1000 years. See the examples in colonialism.

Actually armenians were let to come back there is a document, order in Ottoman archives letting them back and allowing to take their property and land back. As an armenian testimony also says

When the massacre of the Armenian was over, father wanted to come to Malatia to his house. That Turk Hussein's six brothers asked father to stay there; they promised to arrange for him to marry, for father made ploughs and ploughshares for them. Father didn't agree.

The Turks said: "Alright, if you don't agree, then go to your house."

Father came to Malatia and heard that they had killed his wife and child on the road of exile...

He married again (an Armenian) and began to create a new household. I'm my father's first-born son, Grigor, born in 1921. Then, in 1925, my brother was born. Until 1929, my father's family had close relations with Hussein and his six brothers, for they had saved my father's life. Every year they used to bring us a cow, butter, cheese, water-melons and many

http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=126

In 1920, our condition improved. Turkish beggars came to our door. Mother gave them bread, food, clothes. http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=134

but many could not return as another armenian says We lived comfortably until 1939, when the French and the English forgot the big promises they had given to the Armenians and presented the sandjak of Alexandrette to Turkey. Moreover they handed over Moussa Dagh. Eh, what can we do? Could we live with the Turks? We gathered everything and set off to the Syrian sea coast - Passit Field. http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=156

if you wish I can find th ottoman document leting them back too...

You know the story of Enver starting that war. Thats what I a telling he was such ajerk he started a war without preparetions that will end the empire.

(this book is from an armenian scolar living and working in armenia) by the way you are right about rich men hating from revolutionaries. After all they had a lot to loose. I was talking about people like Bogos nubar or Pastirmaciyan. They were righ influenced yet subordinates to foreign povers

Serving in the army, being a parliamentary member and serving in political positions didn't come until the late 1800s-early 1900s. Of the remaining Armenians who survived, its rather odd as to why nearly everyone of them either went to Russian Armenia or the Arab countries, let's not even forget as to how quickly Kemal's army overran Armenia and, had it not been for the Soviet army, almost put a lid on the name Armenian.

I think you would do a better thing if you started countering the quotes I have placed.--MarshallBagramyan 03:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the issue has anythign to do with the 1000 years (more like 500 if it is Ottomans you are refering to) of Turkish inhabitation and rule over these lands. The genocide is a 20th century event with roots in the 19th and to a lesser extent 18th centuries - corresponding with the beginnings of collapse (end of expansion) of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman enlightment in terms of minority policies is not at issue here - what is at issue are the events put into motion from the collapse and fragmentation of Empire (along ethnic lines), the lessening position of said Empire in regards to technological achievement and influence in the world and the bankruptcy of Empire due to vast corruption, an ultimatly untenable political system and the great debt incured from a century (or more) of constant (losing) war. The fact that Armenians as an ethno-political grooup were relative "early adopters" when it came to modern commerce and industry and agricultural practices spurred a cultural revolution within the Empire and with it came a re-realized self-identity...and this came to be resented by the majority Muslim population which was experienceing lessening influence, power and prosperity during the exact same tim....all of this very much like the situation of the Jews in germany prior to WWII...so very much alike in a great many ways. The Ottoman Empire attempted a degree of social reform in the mid 1800s (giving some hope to Armenians...and accounting for a great many of these Armenian government positions and such [largely technocrats or figurehead parlimentarians without any major policy or true legislative powers]) - however Abdul Hamid quashed the reform movement, disolved the Parliment and sought revenge on the Armenians - whom he saw as bringing focus of foreign interests and influence into the internal affairs fo the EMpire. The pattern of forced (as a result of lost war) reform and resulting massacre of Armenians/Christains is a clear pattern. With the rise of the Young Turks there was hpe for a return to reform and liberalism - however the losses of Albania (1910)and the Balkan Wars (1912/14) and defeat of the 1911 Islamist counter coup ended these hopes as much more hardlined and narrowly xenophobic Pan-Turkic elements took control of the CUP and ultimatly the Government. The cozy relations that the CUP had fostered with the Armenian parties came to an end (though the Armenians were slow to realize it) and the policies were put into motion (as early as 1911) that would ultimatly lead to Genocide. Like the Nazis in Germany before the war - the CUP was a radical nationalsitic party that overthrew the old order and established a national party aparatus that assumed tight control over the government and all state activities. This same party is who enacted the Armenians Genocide - just as the Nazi's enacted their "final solution" - based on detailed knowledge of the sucess of the CUP/Turks and the lack of adverse consequences of such radical actions. The process and results in both cases are earily similar - and with good reason. These are the factors that one must examine to understand how such a barbaric, inhumane and otherwise unthinkable things as a genocide could have occured (in both cases).--THOTH 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your way of referencing of Nazi Germany all the time is really boring. First of all governmental rule in Ottoman Empire is weak, the Empire is falling apart at that time? Second of all, it is very very easy to prove what Germans have done and document it. Why Armenians work on forging fake ones? And whine for no documents proving what happened? Yeah, ever thought that maybe its a hate campaign and did not happen anyway?

Number of Death doesn't mean its genocide as Russia has lost over 20 MILLION LIVES during WW2, noone says it was genocide......Xargoth 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Enver - and according to foreign eyewitnesses (including OE allies Germany and Austria) CUP control of the Ottoman Government apparatus was total and complete. You absolutly fail to understand how the CUP party controled the entire Ottoman Government aparatus from the very top centralized bureaus to the regional and local authorities. Those who did not comply with CUP policy were removed and this is documented. Not only was martial law enacted but the Ottoman Government controlled by the CUP had the largest secret internal security organization of its day - and this aparatus enforced and carried out the extermination campaign against the Armenians. Far from there being no document trail this is well documented and proven. Evidence from the post war military tribunals (that was supported by extensive documentation collected at the time) is abundent and it is corraborated by German secret dispatches and other correspondences from the time. Of course the CUP and later the Republic of Turkey did manage to ensure that many incriminating documents were destroyed and the CUP carried on and expanded upon the Ottoman Governments use of secret dispatches and ciphers which included instructions to destroy them upon reading - however your claim of no documentation is far from being true. Oh and please produce the order form Hitler directing the extermination of the Jews. You won't find one.--THOTH 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious - if indeed your contention is true that the Ottoman Government only had weak control throughout Anatolia - and at the same time you (and other Turks here) claim that tens of thousands if not more Armenian irregulars were storming about the countryside killing (up to 500,000) Turks...why can't we find a single solitary report of one of these (very many) lightly guarded "deportation" convoys that were traversing all accross Anatolia - through these areas suposedly not under government control - why do we not see any - not a single solitary report - of such a convoy (of Armenian women, children and old people being led off accross the endless scrub of Anatolia wwithout food or water toward their deaths in the Syrian desert) - why are there no reports of any of these convoys being rescued? Why are there not even reports of any resitance - anyone sauntering up and firing upon the gendarmes etc...I know of not a single report of such....and lacking this - I think it is very hard to make any kind of a case that the CUP/Ottoman Government was somehow not in complete and total control of these Anatolian territories and that there were no Armenian irregular units whatsoever operating behind enemy lines during this period - or if there were they were very few indeed - and judging from the extremely light armed protection/oversite given these convoys - the Ottoman's certainly saw no threat or danger. Again - these Turkish straw man (so-called) counterarguments can be seen for exactly what they are. --THOTH 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some additional insight into similarities between the Holocaust and the Armenians Genocide that ultimatly should make there way into this article - at least in part

"The failure to do justice in the Armenian Genocide can be traced in important part to the overlapping, interlocking dynamics of economics, international law, and mass murder. The more predatory aspects of international law dovetailed well with the destructive social patterns of the Turkish killing. The law proved to be incapable of prosecuting genocide without drawing more "conventional" aspects of colonialism, national development, and international trade into the dock as crimes as well. The legal and economic precedents set in the wake of World War I had considerable impact on the course of the Holocaust during World War II, just as the more widely understood political precedents did. Hitler himself repeatedly raised the international community's failure to do justice in the wake of the Armenian Genocide to explain and justify his own racial theories, and the Germans' pattern of "learning through doing" genocide was similar in important respects to that of the Turks. While the two crimes were different in important respects, they both were led by ideologically driven, authoritarian political parties that had come to power in the midst of a deep social crisis. Both the Ittihad and the Nazis-each originally a marginal political party-managed to perpetrate genocide by enlisting the established institutions of conventional life-the national courts, commercial structures, scholarly community, and so on-in the tasks of mass persecution and eventually mass murder. In both cases, the ruling party achieved its genocidal aims in part by offering economic incentives for persecution, the most basic of which were the opportunity to share in the spoils of deported people and the ability to transfer the costs of economic crisis onto the shoulders of the despised group." Christopher Simpson - The Splendid Blond Beast - 1995 --THOTH 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This article and whole claims of the tag of "genocide" is ridiculous and its political propaganda. Republic of Turkey has already accepted that Armenian people had been relocated druing WWI, but said that it has been done due to their plots against their own government with the allied forces. And that fact is being ignored by Armenians.

Note that, Republic of Turkey also accepted the deaths of many Armenians.. But Armenians have never accepted the death of the Muslim, Kurdish and Turkish population in the region. Death of Turkish and other populations are ignored by Armenians.

Turkish Republic also given its deep regrets for the incidents, yet Armenian Propaganda wants to label it "GENOCIDE" for political pressure, and to go to international courts to ressurrect Treaty of Sevres which is their governemntal politics. And is clearly written in the constitutional laws. Turkish sides deep regrets are ignored by Armenians, they want the LABEL "Genocide" for propaganda, and political reasons.Xargoth 11:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I contend that if you hold this view - that the "tag of "genocide" is ridiculous and its political propaganda" then you have no business editing or contributing here as you obviously have no concept of the truth or reality. We are very aware of the Republic of Turkey's denialist position that does not at all fit with the facts. If you are only here to repeat such then you have no value here except as a spammer. If you are interested in deaths of Muslims/Turks/Kurds during these times I suggest you participate in the WWI article as we are concerned with the Armenian Genocide here. I am not aware of a planned and organized Ottoman Government campaign to rif Anatolia of Muslims Turks or Kurds - if you claim such you will need to provide evidence. The victims of sauch a campaign were primarily Armenians - though there is ample documented evidence of an interelated campaign to rid Anatolia of ethnic Greek and Assyrian Christians as well. And I repeat - the charge/designation of these events as Genocide did not originate from Armenians but from the creator of the word/concept of Genocide itself - Holocaust survivor Ralph Lemkin. Are you claiming that he was just a tool of (non-existant) Armenian propoganda campaign? Additionally - the sdesignation of these events as Genocide is fully consistant with ALL of the various definations of the word/concept as is understood by scholars and historians and (as we have clearly pointed out on a numner of occasions) International Legal bodies. Eyewitness accounts from the time - including a plethora of dispatches from foreign official and unoffical observers, accounts (and confessions and convictions) of/from various Turks at and following this time also corraborate and justify this charge. Additionally the Allied powers during the war officially charged the Ottoman EMpire with Crimes Against Humanity for thes actions (prior to coining of the term "genocide")...do I really need to go on?--THOTH 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You really don't need to go on, we got your point. You have accepted something as truth and you do not accept anything else. No matter how muhc documented and proved you will still ignore it. I have no problem with that too. As i said, this article will get a POV, and the readers will know this is not neutral. As it is already accepted in this discussion and the peer review that this article is not neutral. And this article is protected against the views, and knowledge of the majority. Not my words there.. Xargoth 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Views and knowledge of the majority" ? Thats quite a laugh - as is your claim to have proven or documented much of anything of relevance. Are you serious? If so I would sugest that we are laughing at you and not with you. --THOTH 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"The rules of Wikepedia regarding unsupported minority opinions are clear on this matter I should think. The peer review and other related discussions claerly indicate that 50-50 treatment is in no way appropriate for this article." <== These are your words, not mine. I think you have a very short memory of events, forgetting what you defended 2 days ago.Xargoth 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-07 Armenian Genocide. Note: I am not mediating, merely alerting. :] --Keitei (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

let the survivors talk about rebelion

I have no time to scan (ok I have no scanner actually :) ) you the Frenc and Russian documents of rebelion and "defence". just Take heed and listen to Armenians of the time and their stroies...

http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=9 Sedrak Abraham Harutyunian, born in 1904, Moosh, Arndjkous village

In 1915 the Russians were coming. The Kurds were running away eastward to Bitlis. But they fell on the people and began to plunder; they were even taking off their clothes and pillage. The Ottoman askyars came and drove away the Kurds. (my note: what the...??!!! Turkish soldiers are protecting Armenians from desperate Kurds Runnig away from the Russio-armenian army)

Hayrik Manouk Mouradian, born in 1905, Shatakh, Jnouk village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=23

During the battle Shatakh had 360-400 armed warriors, and the enemy brought an army of six thousand soldiers against us. The fighting lasted a month and a half.

We were defending the whole province. The Armenian lost forty-eight fighters, the Turks lost two thousand askyars. (no resistance and rebel???)

Dro came to our village and delivered a speech, praising the heroic people of Shatakh and said, "Well done." But the Russian army began to retreat and the exile began. The whole road to Van was covered with corpses. (my note: he is talking about the massive movement of armenians with the Russian army it is known that 200.000 armenians went with the retreating Russian army. but they are also in the list of the "murdered")

Nvard Mkrtich Mouradian, born in 1912, Bitlis http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=20

On his own initiative he had placed firewood and food there, so that the travelers might eat and rest. During the heroic self-defensive(the armeninan prefix) battle of Van, my grandfather and his sons had transferred their gunsmith workshop into a cave in the mountains where they made different kinds of rifles, hand-made guns and sent them to the fedayis. The leader of the fedayis - Gnel, was the husband of my grandfather's daughter, a very handsome man. (my note:ottoman armenians, ottoman armenians, ottoman armenianas...)

One night Gnel, that is, my aunt's husband, together with his detachments, came to the mountain passage, which the Turks had closed. He exterminated the Turkish guards and opened the road to Van.

Hayrik Manouk Mouradian, born in 1905, Shatakh, Jnouk village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=23

On our deportation way Kostya (Constantin) Hambartsoumian was guiding us. We had an army of five thousand. (so few so very few armenians were fighting behind the lines... :) ) The army was divided into several regiments: one regiment went on the left side of the valley, the other - in front of us, and the third - behind us. Thus, forty thousand Armenians came out of Van. We didn't know that the Turks had bribed Smko's bandit group. They had surrounded our way and closed it. We should go by the road of Khoy and join the Armenians of the Caucasus, but we were compelled to go to Salmast

Smbat Davit Davtian, born in 1905, Van, Narek village http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=29

The day came when the battle became more intense in Van and Aygestan. The Vaspourakanis, who had gathered there, defended with unyielding will and determination Aygestan and the center of Van, Kaghakamedj, where violent combats took place. Hearing that the Russian army was advancing from Salmast to Van, the Turks departed panic-stricken. Our heroes attacked and not only they exterminated the Turks but also acquired a considerable amount of artillery units, bullets, etc.

On the 6th of May the Armenian flag waved over the citadel of Van. The Vaspourakanis welcomed with great love the Russian soldiers and the Armenian volunteers under the leadership of General Andranik pasha. When it was merrymaking all over a Russian officer approached us and took a photo: me, mother and my brother. Then the Russian revolution began, which compelled the Russian Army to go back to Russia, and with them many refugees came to Armenia

Varazdat Martiros Harutyunian, born in 1909, Van http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=43

I remember the events of 1915: on April 7 the Armenians rebelled, which ended with our victory in May 4. The Turks were very fierce. They had imprisoned many distinguished Armenian intellectuals beforehand. Among them were Arshavir Solakhian and his friends... (wow it seems that it was not a self defence on 7 april armenians rebelled see Van resistance article)

Hovsep Bshtikian, born in 1903, Zeytoun http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng&nmb=138

In Zeytoun, my father and uncle were masons; they worked together and lived together with their families. When the exile began, we were three brothers and two sisters. Our family was large. The orchards of all our cousins were next to each other. In 1915, they exiled the inhabitants of Zeytoun first. I was eleven-twelve years old. Our people fought under the leadership of Norashkharian. For four-five days the fedayees (freedom fighters - tr.) had been fighting in St. Karassoun Mankants (Holy Martyrs') Monastery. Every year, on the holiday of Holy Virgin we used to go there for pilgrimage. We ate, drank, danced, sang, played games; tight-rope walkers came - it was a tradition.

At that place, in 1915, our young men fought. They killed many Turks, but they saw that they wouldn't be able to win. The Turks had already taken well-known persons (my note: meaning ARF members) to the military barracks: about three hundred men. Then they took them to Marash, hanged them, and exiled their families. About one hundred young people, however, had gone to the mountains to fight. At that time, the Catholicos of Cilicia, Sahak Khabayan, sent a papal bull, saying: "Don't do such things. Don't rise up in arms. Surrender." He even came to Zeytoun. We were school-children; they took us to meet him. He preached, calmed the people down, persuaded them that everything would be alright. He became the reason that the people of Zeytoun did not fight. Before, the people of Zeytoun had already fought about sixty times. They had resisted the Turkish government's despotism and had always won. That was the reason why the Turks feared the people of Zeytoun and didn't collect any taxes from them. This time they were also ready to resist and die: for they knew that, in any case, they would die in exile, in the deserts of Der-Zor. I was in the third form. They came and closed the schools in Marash. They deported us. The Turks came, gave us donkeys; (what a genocide..!!!) we loaded them and went to Marash. And from there they exiled part of the people to the vicinity of Konia and the other - to Der-Zor. They took us to Konia.(ahh they are not sent to Dar el zor to die...)

In 1918, when the war ended and the armistice was declared, the Armenians began to go back to their place. We came from Safa to the station. There we remained two-three days, and then the train came from Mosul. Turkish soldiers were in the wagons and on the wagons. They were running away. There was no place in the train, but we got on somehow and came. [[(see what a genocide they came back and in the same train with Turkish soldiers geeee!!!!! think about a jew family in a train full of SS. this is just like holocoust.)]]

Now write down all the place names where Armeians say they resisted, rebelled etc. Wow its half of Anatolia!!!! From Armenian "genocide" victims mouths their very own words. Read it all please and see that almost in all cases the massacres are just Heard!!!! So many first hand resistance and killing stories and of course plenty of beating up and miss behaviour and sometimes killings but mass killings extermination stories all others are simply heard... You are like our typical Muslim who believes in a weird rituel thinking it is in Kouran yet he has never read the book himself... listen to your grandfathers man...

Here is other links showing the authenticity of these testimonies: http://www.inhomage.com/index.php?page=figures

http://www.geocities.com/vsvaz333/

And these people are presenting this as genocide proof... :)))

neurobio 01:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those quotes are missing context; nevertheless I don't know why you're so happy about them since they only help strengthen the Genocide argument (i.e. the rebellion in Van refers to the Armenians fighting back against Turkish military and government provocations; presenting the fact that Armenians welcomed the Russians as an anomaly is similar to saying that Jews welcomed the US and Soviet armies when they captured the concentration camps, etc.) And note: many Turks saved Armenians, especially upstanding Turkish soldiers from the Kurdish brigands who risked their own lives; that is a fact. Again, it just goes to add more weight to the Genocide argument.--MarshallBagramyan 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I paste the whole paragraph to show that I am not making selective copy pasting. (like Dadrian)

2. So you see at least you can no longer tell the UNARMED civilians story. they were aböle to defend them selves and counter attack. So it was a war. Who is ethically correct is another question.

3. The Van incident and Takeover is before Deportation orders. (at least 3 months)and please remember that they ruled that vilayet under and autonomy for years on.

4. Many armenians returned back and took their property.

5. You still do not understand the difference between genocide and armed conflict or massacre. an army of 5000 and its just from Van surroundings. Remember Armed and Political groups are not protected...

6. Turks are killed by armenians. and that number is really high.

7. Not all armeians are deported. And not all are send to Dar el Zor...

8. this is Armenians best documentation! your smoking gun! and still it works against genocide claims. So I am happy about it. of course armenians will say it is a self defence or reaction to provacation who cares. They say there was a war and that matters.neurobio 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how through all those quotes you are still able to reach those conclusions. When Armenians said that they kill Turks (like the ones you bold), they mean soldiers. You're really misconstruing what they are saying and spinning them as if its, voila, "proof that even Armenians admit there was no genocide and the killings were in reciprocity" etc. That's called a non-sequiter, the facts and quotes do not exactly match the conclusions.--MarshallBagramyan 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Marshall what else do u want as proof? U claim that it was turkish soldiers! How did u come up with that conclusion? I mean u sound like only your conclusions are the ones that make sense. And u yourself come up with some unrelated (to the quoted article) conclusions! I say this in every discussion page and gona repeat myself again (since the quoted article is prooving my claims); in simple words; "turks killed armenians and armenians killed turks". This is not genocide! Armenians always keep saying that they have lost so many people than turks. So what? for example, in second world war USA dropped a fukin atom bomb and killed over 40000 people in seconds, thats not considered genocide but what ottmans did was genocide? ProudTurk

Just to backup MarshallBagramyan on this, Neurobio you are taking things out of context. I know Turks love to rewrite history but this is just too egregious (I know its an SAT word you should look it up) for example on your story about the man from Zeytoun you say that they weren't even taken to Der Zor but to Konia, it clearly says in that sentence at the end of the paragraph (if you read the entire paragraph)Der-Zor. So again your attempts to say the genocide didn't happen backfire in your face, Clearly the turks were the aggressors according to this testimony, which is why Armenians fought back. It doesn't seem very shocking that people try to resist against insurmountable odds when their lives are at stake and they have nothing to lose, what would you do just give up? In response to you ProudTurk. The US dropping an atomic bomb on Japan does not qualify as genocide because they weren't trying to wipe the Japanese Race off the face of the Earth, they were showing their technological superiority so they wouldn't have to make a ground invasion onto Tokyo, which would potentially have cost the lives of countless American soldiers.

At that place, in 1915, our young men fought. They killed many Turks, but they saw that they wouldn't be able to win. The Turks had already taken well-known persons to the military barracks: about three hundred men. Then they took them to Marash, hanged them, and exiled their families. About one hundred young people, however, had gone to the mountains to fight. At that time, the Catholicos of Cilicia, Sahak Khabayan, sent a papal bull, saying: "Don't do such things. Don't rise up in arms. Surrender." He even came to Zeytoun. We were school-children; they took us to meet him. He preached, calmed the people down, persuaded them that everything would be alright. He became the reason that the people of Zeytoun did not fight. Before, the people of Zeytoun had already fought about sixty times. They had resisted the Turkish government's despotism and had always won. That was the reason why the Turks feared the people of Zeytoun and didn't collect any taxes from them. This time they were also ready to resist and die: for they knew that, in any case, they would die in exile, in the deserts of Der-Zor. I was in the third form. They came and closed the schools in Marash. They deported us. The Turks came, gave us donkeys; we loaded them and went to Marash. And from there they exiled part of the people to the vicinity of Konia and the other - to Der-Zor. They took us to Konia.

KingVegeta2000 09 November 2006 09:45 (UTC)

Oh GOD Please!!! Please, Please!!!! I say not all Armenians were sent to Dar el zor. he says "they exiled part of the people to the vicinity of Konia and the other to Der-Zor". now I made them bold so that you can see. Maybe you should look where Konya is. it is in the middle of Anatolia (it is no desert at all). No one is nuts enough to say Armenians were not sent to Dar el zor. and since all these places are in the ottoman empire borders it is not an exile but Deportation which is also done to many Turks and Muslims in war conditions. The only egregious thing here is you skip all confessions about rebelion, armed resistance and killings directly from Armenian survivors testimonies and try to accuse me of forgery. at least can you please tell me how this peacefull folk amased enough weapons to resist the army???? This is really sad if you are not Armenian. Showing that we are facing an incredible Western prejudice. An as Einstein said: "breaking an Atom is easier that breaking a prejudice".

Wipe of the armenians...? why no one touched Armenians in istanbul, Izmir why the deportations stopted when the Armenian population reduced to %10 to 20 in an area? Why did American, German, missionary orphanages and East relief were let to work and help armenian if the intent was to Eradicate? why did Ottoman empire let thousands of Orphants to be transported to Greece and France from istanbul ports? Why there is not a single document, order, telegraph in the Ottoman archive ordering a killing? why there are so many SECRET orders to protect Armenians? Why did the Ottoman empire tried and hanged the Officers engaged in atrocities? Why did Ottoman goverment isued an order letting Armenian to come back? And why there are so many forged documents and alleged quotes that Armenians present if Turks are re-writing history.

you say "Clearly the turks were the aggressors according to this testimony". thats right. But have you ever readTurkish survivos testimonies.

"At that moment we saw that the Armenians shot my mother's cousin with her child still nursing on her breast, then an Armenian came and killed the child with a bayonet. They killed a lot of people in that area. Those that could run away escaped, those that couldn't had gas poured over them and were burned. We were forced to sit there for quite a while." http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/witness.html

have you seen the mass graves full of Turkish villagers? http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana7.html http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/oba_village.html http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/cavusoglu.html

neurobio 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If ottomans wanted to kill and "wipe the armenians from the face of the earth" then they would have simply killed them, like nazis did to jews in the camps. y even bother to departure? u r confused vegeta! what americans did and what ottomans did was pretty much the same thing. That wwas what i was trying to point out in my earlier comment. similar to americans, ottomans did not want another uprising in the area and hence they deported armenians! bad idea? not ethical? u can discuss on those! but one thing u cannot discuss is if u assume that it was a genocide cuz clearly its not! one last thing; y did ottomans only deported those in the area? y not the armenians in istanbul? can a reason be those in eastern anatolia more likely to uprise? my point (in case u dont get it again vegeta .) )? this proves those on exile were dported not only because of their nationality but because they were in the uprising risky area. so that means obviously, it was not intended to kill the armenians! ProudTurk

In Responce to neurobio, what you are infering about that article is saying that just because they weren't sent to Der-Zor means that the turk soldiers weren't going to kill them. If you keep reading that article his brother dies out of shock on the way to konia. Another example of you taking things out of context is in the Sedrak Harutyunyan account. The Turkish soldiers did not driving the kurds away does not have anything to do with protecting Armenians because before in that account it mentions that the turkish soldiers killed some of this persons family.

As we came out to go to the village headman's house, the askyars came and they wanted to kill my uncle's son. He struck them, and all three fell down. But, instead of taking their gun and kill them, he ran away. I and three other children walked along the village, hand in hand. They were beating people with whips and were killing them. I saw near the headman's house that they had killed eight men; they had tortured them before killing: they had cut a man's arm, had struck another on the head. We remained at the headman's house for a few days. One day my mother went to our house, where she found some bread crumbs and brought them to us. We were altogether seven children. We were hungry. My mother went again to our house, there was nothing left. They had filled the stored flour on the ground. My mother had gathered the flour mixed with earth and brought it, she baked bread with it, and we ate. We have even eaten grass.

Another thing don's start that "Western Prejudice" stuff with me that is an ad hominem by calling me prejudice, which has nothing to do with the argument we are having. Also since Turkey is so eager to join the EU, the majority of turks want to become part of the West. Last time I checked Armenians are still fighting to get the genocide recognized by all western governments, two of the most powerful western governments still haven't recognized the Armenian Genocide (U.S. and U.K.) The reason why Armenians had guns is because they were somewhat distrustful of the Ottoman Government that massacred them 20 years before. Do you think its very smart to through your arms down when you are ruled by a corrupt government who lies to its people by promising them liberty I think not. In response to ProudTurk The reason why Ottomans did not deport in Izmir and Constantinople was simply geographic, Constantinople is on the other side of Turkey and as you people have been saying before the turks were fighting a war (not against the Armenians), that kind of man power to march Armenians accross turkey was not available at the time as for izmir, izmir is a coast city too close to the border of different countries so if a mass deportation of Armenians happend, it would be a little hard to hide from the outside world. Another thing what the US did to Japan by dropping the atomic bomb was not genocide because both countries were fairly even at the start of the war not to mention that the Japanese were the aggressors when they 1st bombed Pearl Harbor, as is not the case with the Armenian Genocide despite whatever lies and propaganda you come up with. We were not the aggressors, I would be complaining to if my army of thousands was being beaten by a couple hundred people but not because the Armenians had weapons. They did that to prove a point on both the European and Pacific front about their capabilities, you shouldn't be so hasty about criticizing the decisions of one of your countries major allies in the world. By the way In response to both of you the genocide is closer than ever to being recognized by the U.S. because the Democratic Party has taken control of the U.S. Congress with a Speaker of the House thats from California, where there is quite a large Armenian population. So I can see why you people have tried to vandalize this article so close too election time.

KingVegeta2000 23:28 09 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are a teenager that is why you are lacking a kind touch in your writings. hopefully in time you will grow up. "They did that to prove a point on both the European and Pacific front about their capabilities". killing 140.000 civilians in an instant is quite a good point and talking about it in such a cold blooded way is also a good point. "you shouldn't be so hasty about criticizing the decisions of one of your countries major allies in the world" that is an examplary quote. Says a lot about your respect to other peoples countries and their culture. I just want to remind you that our world is not rotating around California or US and we have been around for a long time here. some of your words "whatever lies and propaganda you come up with" "Turks like rewriting history" that is definetly non hominem and I dont know what if not precudice. And a question have you checked any of my links about Turkish victims... if not that is prejudice. And finally... After killing milions and milions of American indians, eradicating their culture and seazing their land, storming Vietnam killing milions with chemical and napalm boms, dumping 2 A-bombs on civilians and kiling 140.000 in an instant and many more thousand by radioactivity. killing (or Liberating from this world) 500.000 iraqi civilians (with claims of Weapons of mass destruction which then turn out to be fake), constantly causing political unrest in south America as well as all around the world (so that you can eat more Burgers) and then lecturing about human rights and accepting some genocide claims is quite weird at best. Well that is all one can expect from Arnold and his voters I guess. hasta la vista...

And these people are Armenians friend and we Turks (the identical twins of Armenians) are enemies. look at the wonders of this world.neurobio 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all I am not a teenager, 2nd of all if the world doesn't revolve around the US why do you blame the worlds problems on the US. Lets go over WWII, the reason why the US dropped the A-Bomb was so they wouldn't have to make a ground invasion onto Tokyo costing the lives of countless American soldiers as I had stated previously and which is established fact its not cold-blooded at all when you have American soldiers on the line. Yes you (who is a turk or at least turkic) are rewriting history by misconstruing and selectively copying and pasting acounts by survivors, believe it or not i have traveled outside of the United States and have respect for other cultures, just not of people who spread propaganda and lies such as you and your turkish government. I mean, it says in this wikipedia article that Talat was convicted in absentia of Massacring Armenians. Why did Talat Flee Turkey? Yes I have checked your links about turkish victims, it mentions in there, specifically the grave in the barn, that race was determined by cranial measurements??? that seems suspect at best and even if you accept that method of determining race there was an Armenian amongst those bodies. Now about the U.S., specifically South America, we shall refer to Brazil and Venezuela, It was up to Brazil to allow multi-nationals into their country to do business, private enterprise is not regulated by the U.S. when its overseas. Private enterprise does not represent the government of the United States either, hence why its called private enterprise. In the case of Venezuela, the United States is currently on unfavorable terms with that country because of their current leader Hugo Chavez being a socialist, socialism is against the principles of what this country is founded upon, but I guess Chavez can afford to be a socialist and sunbsidize his people because of his country's huge oil reserves, once the country's reserves run out, that country will change its rhetoric quite fast, onto Vietnam, in Vietnam the U.S. was excersing the policy of containment (of communism), this is why many lives were lost, it wasn't a strategy to win but to merely contain, your country was involved in this policy, notably during the Cuban missile crisis, so when you criticize the use of nuclear arms just remember your government let our government place nuclear arms in your country, onto iraq, The reason why we went to Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction just because weapons were not found does not necessarily mean that they did not exist after all did Saddam not use Chemical Weapons against the kurds? Why did Saddam expel Weapons inspectors from his country? What was he afraid of hiding? This article is about the Armenian Genocide not U.S. Foreign Policy. So this is the last time I will be talking about it. It was ProudTurk that brought up the Nuclear bomb being used not I. My contribution to this talk page cannot be dismissed just because I am young, after all Farraday came up with his constant when he was 25, did not Linus Pauling earn a Ph.D. at age 24 which takes normally 10 years? I can see why you referenced Arnold, since he did sign the bill that recognizes Armenian Genocide in California. Don't insult Arnolds voters either ad hominem. I lack a kind touch because I don't like it when people lie and spread propaganda, it compromises the integrity of wikipedia. KingVegeta2000 01:49 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct Counter to the Cliam being made here that there was no Ottoman intention to kill Armenians and that if such were wished they could have found a better way

First of all you should research the Holocaust to understand exactly what the Germans did to kill the Jews...in was not all just push them into gas chambers...it was called "deportation" to at first...and in fact the Ottomans managed to kill more and certainly a higher percentage of the Armenian population more quickly then the rate at which the Nazis killed Jews. Fact.

"I have the honor to report to the Embassy about one of the most severest measures ever taken by any government and one of the greatest tragedies in all history. Practically every male Armenian of any consequence at all here has been arrested and put into prison. A great many of them were subjected to the most cruel tortures under which some of them died. Several hundred of the leading Armenians were sent away at night and it seems to be clearly established that most, if not all, of them were killed. Last week there were well founded rumors of a threatened massacre. I think there is very little doubt that one is planned. Another method was found, to destroy the Armenian race. This is no less than the deportation of the entire Armenian population,

The full meaning of such an order can scarcely be imagined by those who are not familiar with the peculiar conditions of this isolated region. A massacre, however horrible the word may sound, would be humane in comparison with it. In a massacre many escape but a wholesale deportation of this kind in this country means a lingering and perhaps even more dreadful death for nearly every one. For people traveling as these Armenians who are going into exile will be obliged to travel it is certain death for by far the greater part of them. The fate of these people can readily be imagined. The method is perhaps a little more cultured than a massacre but it it will be far more effective and thorough. It is quite probable that many of them will be robbed and murdered en route as the roads are now filled with bands of pillaging Kurds. In any case, it is quite certain that almost all will die in one way or another before they ever reach their destination.

Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul in Harput Turkey - In a report to US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau dated June 30 1915 - U.S. National Archives. D.S. Record Group 59, Dec. File No. 867.4016/269

"...everyone knows it is a case of going to one's death. …Those who have reached here are only a small portion, however, of those who started. By continuing to drive these people people on in this way it will be possible to dispose of all of them in a comparatively short time. The condition of these people indicated clearly the fate of those who have left and are about to leave from here. I believe nothing has been heard from any of them as yet and probably very little will be heard. The system that is being followed seems to be to have bands of Kurds awaiting them on the roads to kill the men especially and incidentally some of the others. The entire movement seems to be the thoroughly organized and effective massacre this country has ever seen. Not many men have been spared, however, to accompany those who are being sent into exile, for a more prompt and sure method has been used to dispose of them.

Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul in Harput Turkey - In a report to US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau dated July 11, 1915 - U.S. National Archives. D.S. Record Group 59, Dec. File No. 867.4016/122

“…in regard to the expulsion of the Armenians from this region, or to speak more clearly, the wholesale massacre of these Armenians, as follows - Any doubt that may have been expressed in previous reports as to the Government's intention in sending away the Armenians have been removed and any hope that may have been expressed as to the possibility of some of them surviving has been destroyed. It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the methods have been more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had first supposed.” “It is impossible to say how many Armenians have been killed but it is estimated that the number as not far from a million. Greater misery could not be imagined. It was bad enough before when there were several thousand all in a most wretched condition. Now, when only the worst of them are left behind, the scene beggars all description. The dead and dying are everywhere. Each day there are many deaths and these will continue until all are gone. Dead bodies are to be seen there at any time. One sees dead bodies now in all directions and on every road...The whole country as one vast charnel house, or, more correctly speaking, slaughterhouse. When one sees men and women seventy or even eighty years old, lame, blind and sick, innocent women and children and helpless babies sent away to be killed or die and actually sees them dead or dying all around, it is impossible to conceive of any justification that can be urged for a measure so severe.” Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul in Harput Turkey - In a report to US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau dated July 24, 1915 - U.S. National Archives. D.S. Record Group 59, Dec. File No. 86.4016/269 --THOTH 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"...to cover the extermination of the Armenian nation with a political cloak, military reasons were being put forward...After I had informed myself about the facts and had made enquiries on all sides, I came to the conclusion that all these accusations against the Armenians were, in fact, based on trifling provocations, which were taken as an excuse for slaughtering 10,000 innocents for one guilty person, for the most savage outrages against women and children, and for a campaign of starvation against the exiles which was intended to exterminate the whole nation. ...A German Catholic ecclesiastic reported that Enver Pasha declared, in the presence of Monsignore Dolci, the Papal Envoy at Constantinople, that he would not rest so long as a single Armenian remained alive. The object of the deportations is the extermination of the whole Armenian nation." Dr. Martin Niepage, The Horrors of Aleppo; Engl. Trans. Doran Co., apeared in the New York Times publication Current History Vol. 5 Nov. 1916 pp 335-37.--THOTH 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

". . .As for the Armenians, they were treated differently in the different vilayets. They were suspect and spied upon everywhere, but they suffered a real extermination, worse than massacre, in the so-called 'Armenian Vilayets.' from the 24th June onwards, the Armenians were all "interned"---that is, ejected by force from their various residences and despatched under the guard of the gendarmerie to distant, unknown destinations, which for a few will mean the interior of Mesopotamia, but for four-fifths of them has meant already a death accompanied by unheard-of cruelties. The official proclamation of internment came from Constantinople. It is the work of the Central Government and the " Committee of Union and Progress." ... If they knew all the things that I know, all that I have had to see with my eyes and hear with my ears, all Christian powers that are still neutral would be impelled to rise up against Turkey and cry anathema against her inhuman Government and her ferocious "Committee of Union and Progress," and they would extend the responsibility to Turkey's Allies, who tolerate or even shield with their strong arm these execrable crimes, which have not their equal in history, either modern or ancient. Shame, horror and disgrace!" Interview of G. Gorrini, former italian Consul-General at Trebizond, published in the journal Il Messaggero of Rome, on August 25 1915 --THOTH 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Counter to the Claim that the ottoman Authorities were acting in self defense or for military necessity

"The criminal gangs who were released from the prisons, after a week's training at the War Ministry's training grounds, were sent off to the Caucasian front as the brigands of the Special Organization, perpetrating the worst crimes against the Armenians ... . The Ittihadists intended to destroy the Armenians, and thereby to do away with the Question of the Eastern Provinces." "In order to justify this enormous crime [of the Armenian genocide] the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul. [It included such statements as:] the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits [to enable the Allied fleets to capture Istanbul]. These vile and malicious incitements [were such, however, that they] could persuade only people who were not even able to feel the pangs of their own hunger." "among those Armenians who were atrociously wasted, despite the fact that they were most innocent, guiltless, and who had committed no crime whatsoever, were the Armenians of Bursa, Ankara, Eskiehir, and Konya." Ahmet Refik - Turkish Military Intelligence Officer in WWI - İki Komite-İki Kıtâl, İstanbul 1919 --THOTH 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"They (the Ittahadist leaders) have fabricated, for the benefit of Allied Powers, an alleged revolution stirred up by the Dashnak party. They have inflated the importance of isolated incidents and acts of self-defense by the Armenians and used it as an excuse to deport the bordering population. On the way. the Armenians have been murdered, on orders of the Committee, by gangs of Kurds and Turks and at times, even by gendarmes." Dr. Max Erwin Scheubner-Richter, in a secret dispatch to German Authorities - December 1916 - per Lepsius Johannes, Deutchland und Armenien 1914-1918. Document No. 309. --THOTH 15:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is evident that deportations of Armenians is not motivated by military considerations, the minister of the Interior Talaat Bey recently in a conversation with Dr. Mortsmann presently in the Imperial Service, declared openly that the Porte wants to profit from the World War for radically finishing their internal enemies – the Christians before the intervention of outside powers." Baron Hans Wangenheim - German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1912 to October 1915- in a document sent to the German Chancellery, 17 June 1915

. "...the manner in which the matter of relocation is being handled demonstrate that the government is in fact pursuing the goal of annihialating the Armenian race in Turkey" Baron Hans Wangenheim - German Foreign Ministry Archives.

"The systematic butchery of the uprooted and deported Armenians have assumed such a scope...it was not only tolerated but openly promoted by the government. It meant the extermination of the Armenians. Despite government assurances to the contrary, everything points to the goal of the destruction of the Armenian people." Hohenloe-Langenburg - German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Oct-Nov 1915 - German Foreign Ministry Archives --THOTH 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Clims that Van was a "rebellion" and that Turks were massacred there

This attempt of the Armenians to defend themselves against the Turkish attack in Van was promptly misrepresented in a communique' which was sent by Enver Pasha and the Turkish Government to Berlin, and thence spread all over the world, as an attack by bands of Armenian insurrectionists who, in the rear of the Turkish army had fallen prey upon the Muhammedan population. Out of 180,000 Moslems in the Vilayet of Van only 30,000 had succeeded in escaping! In a later report issued by the Turkish embassy in Berlin on October 1, 1915, the story was further embellished: "No fewer than 180,000 Moslems had been killed. It was not surprising that the Moslems had taken vengeance for this". Some 18 Turks, answering to the number of Armenians they had killed in Van, had turned into 180,000! This astonishing impudent lie has a kind of foundation. According to statistics there should be 180,000 Moslems, including 30,000 Turks and 150,000 Kurds, in the Vilayet of Van. The Turks fled westwards when the Russian army advanced, while the 150,000 Kurds remained where they were, and were molested neither by the Russians nor the Armenians" Dr. Fridtjof Nansen - Armenia and the Near East - 1928 - p. 302 --THOTH 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Van uprising certainly was an act of desperation. The local Armenians realized that general massacres against the Armenians had already started and they would be the next target. In the course of the summer 1915 the Turkish government with inexorable consequence brought its bloody task of extermination of an entire nation to an end...The gruesome destruction of the Armenian nation in Asia Minor by the Ittihadist government was an act which was barbaric and which to the highest degree outrages all human senses." Joseph Pomiankowski, Vice-Marshall, (Austrian Military Plenipotentiary in Wartime Turkey during WWI) - The Collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Vienna, 1928, p.160 - 161. --THOTH 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"...One hour later we saw numerous gigantic columns of smoke surge up from the opposite shore of the lake, indicating the sites where the cities and hamlets of the provinces of Van were being devoured by flame. Then I understood. The die was cast. The Armenian "revolution" had begun...April 21. At dawn I was awakened by the noise of shots and volleys. The Armenians had attacked the town. Immediately I mounted my horse and, followed by some armed men, went to see what was happening. Judge of my amazement to discover that the aggressors had not been the Armenians, after ail, but the civil authorities themselves! Supported by the Kurds and the rabble of the vicinity, they were attacking and sacking the Armenian quarter..." Rafael de Nogales - Venuzualan proffesional soldier who served as an officer in the Ottoman Army during WWI and was responsible for the artillery portion of the Ottoman seige of Van in Four Years Beneath the Crescent 1926 --THOTH 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

let see what else they say

I dont know where to start. If you go to an Armenian site or read an armenian books you encounter many selective copy pastes like that. However I want to warn everybody including our Armenian friends here of the deception of Vahan Dadrian and his follovers. their speciality is selective copy pasting. So seeing that you used Nogales and Ahmet Refik I assume that you take them at face value and see them as trusted sources. Then lets start with nogales and se what else he says...

Indeed Nogales was in the ottoman army. But he was in the army not in Van city that is probably why he talks about Van events so late. Actually armeian sources and the testimony I have put above start the event much earlier see the outrageous Van resistance article in wiki for that. So it seems nogales was away from the first incident. Still mark that they were expecting an uprising. This is minor issue lets see what else he says. my notes are in parantheses..

NOGALES

"After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; (all troops and army to russian side All of them ottoman armenians. Now this is really some treachery) to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands. These bloody excesses had as their necessary corollary the immediate disarmament by the Ottoman authorities of the gendarmes and other Armenian soldiers who still remained in the army (probably because they had been unable to escape (this is by noglales)) and the utilization of their labour in the construction of highways and in carrying provisions back and forth across the mountains. (so it seems the Turks did not just go crazy and statr killing their own troops when Russians were oproachig. Oh soory there was no killing at all) The altogether unjustifiable desertion of the Armenian troops, united to the outrages they committed afterwards, on their return, in the sectors of BashKaleh, Serail, and Bayacet, did not fail to alarm the Turks and rouse their fear lest the rest of the Armenian population in the frontier provinces of Van and Erzurum revolt likewise, and attack them with the sword. This indeed is precisely what happened a few weeks after my coming, when the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse (now this is strange) against our expeditionary army (meaning a small force for exporation) in Persia; thus giving rise to bloody and terrible occurrences which, under the circumstances, might have been foreseen."

Rafael Nogales Four Years Beneath the Crescent, 1926, p. 45

'About Ahmet refik' here I have presented several armenian books and as usual I always tried to give the full source and link when ever possible. You have tried to dicredit these Armenians including your firts Prime minister. I will not do so that I will just continue reading the book. If you knew some ottoman Turkis you would have seen the books name is tranlated as "two paries/Commitees two massacres" and probably stay away from it but you fall victim to Dadrian style selective copy pasting. Just let me remind that he was out of army work at the year of 1913 another Dadrian forgery. I may talk about the rest if I find the whole book. http://www.biyografi.net/kisiayrinti.asp?kisiid=197. in turkish but trust me on this..

Lets read what else the same book says...

"Two Committees and Two Massacres," Istanbul, 1919, pp. 71–72, describing Erzincan: "..fresh corpses lying about in the streets and deep in the wells covered with blood not yet dried were those of the poor Turks killed by Armenians. When looked down into the narrow wells, a bad odor would strike the nose and one would feel faint. Hairs and pieces of clothes of the unfortunate Turks were still there stuck to the stones of the wells. Places of ruins, places of burnt down houses, bottoms of the walls were filled with the corpses of the Turks, severed arms, skulls, fatty leg bones, bodies not yet decayed. People were grieved and wretched. Those wandering in the downtown were without shoes, with burnt faces and in tattered clothes. Only grass was on sale in the shops to feed the people. Wheat was not available anywhere but with the military command. Were it not for the kindness of the Commander, even the Sub-governor would no doubt starve to death."

and in another book the reliable source of Dadrian Ahmet refik Describes Erzurum. READ it and see why we will newer accept your genocide stories. Remember we did not read them from books or learned in school. We also listened them from our grand fathers.

"On the Roads of the Caucasus," describing Erzurum: "I am in a place destroyed by fire. This historical and devoted land of the Turks lay in ruins. Streets, buildings, mosques, madrasas and entirely destroyed houses are filled up with bodies. When the rubbles of burnt down houses are slightly moved heads of men and children, arms, legs, parts and pieces of bodies and feet are revealed.... While fighting against the Ottoman Army in the formation of armed bands outside the town, the Armenians were killing the people in the town by stuffing them into caserns and shutting in houses. Sometimes they chopped the heads on a log and threw the bodies into wells.... There is nothing under the rubbles of walls but Turkish bodies. When the soil is slightly dug, a human arm would first appear, then the head and the whole body displaying a tragic scene. Corpses were so rotten that brains would flow out at the slightest touch, grinning chins would disintegrate and fatty, burnt and crushed chests would appear naked and wretched in soiled clothes.... The Armenian savagery had terribly devastated Erzurum. Streets were all filled with bodies of women and children.(yes but these woman an children are Turks they dont count onlyAarmenian woman and children are eligible for mercy) Women’s breasts and even private organs were nailed to walls. Children’s lungs were hanging from telegraph wires. Entirely naked woman bodies with pierced abdomens were put in rows on both sides of the road. When we had seen this state of my unfortunate nation, we became almost crazy. I wonder if civilized Europe will try to find out those who are guilty of these crimes.(of course not. in the future the victims will be known as butchers, killers etc. in adition Antranik the butcher will be a national heroe) History has never recorded such brutalities before. They caught innocent maidens, attacked them like wild animals and satisfied themselves on their innocent bodies and then ripped their abdomens with bayonets and threw them onto ruins. We were occupied for weeks to gather these corpses, take their photographs and bury them. While entering the town it was terrible to see the roadsides. On both sides were arranged woman corpses. The genital organs of women were torn and male genital organs were pushed into. Tears were coming involuntarily from my eyes and I was feeling a bitter curse at the deepest point of my heart."

Arent we a patient and incredible nation not to hate armenians, whereas Armenians are raising their children with hate. So my friend When you take a selective copy paste from Dadrian Be Very carefull.

I will not waste my time on other quotes that prove nothing I will quote Thoth instead "Funny you present here the second hand testimony of (missionaries who pledged and oath to end the unholly devil empire/ officers of a nations at war with Ottomans) who likewise refers to second hand reports all of which is filled with generalizing assumptions far beyond what this individual could ever expect to knwo as fact.". Alas .... this is the genocide proof and with this of course you cantgo near an international court...

About germans I did not check your sources but just lets hear a German who was REALLY there

General Lieutenant a.d. Bronsart von Schellendorf, former Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Field Troops, recent Commander of the Royal Prussian Infantry Division.

"They have happened ever since Armenians and Kurds have lived in close proximity in the borderlands of Russia, Persia, and Turkey. Kurds are nomads and raise animals. The Armenians are acre farmers, artisans, or businessmen. The Kurd has no school experience, doesn't know money or the worth of money, and knows that being taxed is forbidden through the Koran. The Armenian, as business man, uses the inexperience of the Kurd in a scrupulous manner, and takes advantage of him. The Kurd feels that he has been cheated, takes revenge on him, and the Armenian atrocities are ready. It must be said that differences in religion never have anything to do with this.

The revolt had been prepared way before it took place, as the many bulletins, brochures, weapons, ammunition and explosives found in the areas populated by Armenians made it clear. It was surely instigated and funded by Russia.

An Armenian conspiracy against high government works and officers in Istanbul was discovered on time.

Since all the able Moslem men were in the army, it was easy for the Armenians to begin a horrible slaughter of the defenseless Moslem inhabitants in the area. They did not just go against the Turkish Eastern front army from a flank or at its back, but they simply cleaned out the Moslem inhabitants in those areas. They performed gruesome deeds, of which I, as an eye witness honestly say that they were much worse than what Turks have been accused of as an Armenian atrocity.

The Minster of the Interior was Talaat, and he had to make the decisions and give the directives. The Army was in its most vital stage of fighting. The Moslem inhabitants were fleeing from the terror of the Armenians. In this critical situation, the whole ministry came to the difficult decision to name the Armenians dangerous to the state, and to remove them from the border areas to a less inhabited, but fruitful area, to Northern Mesopotamia. The Minister of the Interior gave the task to the Gendarmerie, trained to deal with this assignment.

Talaat was no thoughtless murderer, but a far sighted statesman. He saw in the Armenians, who now were under the influence of the Russians and others who had Great-Armenia dreams, but in quieter times, were very useful citizens, hoped that removed from the Russian influence and away from the Kurdish quarreling, they would, with their intelligence and work ethics make their new home luscious and fruitful.

He also saw further on that the Entente press would use the relocation of the Armenians as a hypocritical propaganda of Anti-Christianism, and he would have even for that reason alone avoided any harsh treatment of the Armenians. (I wonder did he foresaw it will last 100 years).

The unusually difficult task to keep thousands of Moslem refugees and in another area Armenians on their assigned marching ways, to lead, feed, find shelter for them all, was over-whelming to the too few who could not cover the masses, nor most often had no idea of how to do so. Talaat did his utmost to help. Even into my hands came requests and demands to the Army to assist whenever possible, to provide food, shelter, doctors and medicine to the civilians under way. Unfortunately, even with all the help that was possible, thousands of Moslems as well as Armenians died and it goes on read the rest here http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/german-witness.htm

I will not even waste a second on Morgenthau and his armenian officers and Lepsius who simply took al documents from morgenthau. the guys are long wasted in the academic fields. but if needed in mediation we can talk about it. I humbly ask every one to wait for mediation instead of this continious efford. we both know you will not move an inc... maybe me too...neurobio 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You should know better then to use Bronsart as a source as he was active in both propoganda and even actions against Armenians. His views are well known and his commentary can be virewed as nothing but propoganda - Talat as a "far sighted statesman" - come now - by what measure - I don't even think most Turks would buy that. It is interesting that he mentions Muslim refugees. In fact the Ottoman Government managed to succesfully resettle upwards of 900,000 Muslim refugees from outlying Ottoman Areas into Anatolia and did provide them with sufficient food and medicine and such that there were very few losses - quite unlike the Armenian experience. As for all the rest - again - that some Armenians (and if you look carefully these are in primarily or even exclusivly in reference to Russian Armenians and the time periods of these observations are also not clear (I do see 1919 in one) - and while some of the perpetrators of these incidents/crimes may have been Ottoman Armenians who fled and joined the Russians - consider the circumstance - the mass devestation and destruction and murder that they had witneessed and that they had lost everything...I'm sure that many were driven quite mad with only thoughts of revenge. It is still a sad legacy that these sort of strocities did occur (but it still is not Genocide nor do isolated instances like this justify such...and the vast majority of such occured after the Genocide so could not be justification anyway)...its also not clear in all case who actually did these things - be it Armenians fighting with the Russians or the Russians themselves or Cossaks who were fighting with the Russians and were known for their cruelty (specifically towards Muslims). SO yes these things did happen and they are a great tragedy of war...but if you could comprhend the written word you would understand the cast differences between isolated massacres - however terrible they might have been - and the organized government sponsored massive campaign of Genocide that did occur to the Armenians. You can make counter charges all you want - but the truth is known - you have not presented anything new here. BTW Nogalas was in charge of the Ottoman artillery that pounded Van during the period just prior to the arrival of the Russians...and perhaps if you had actually read his book - rahter then relying on TallTurkishLie you might actually understand the context of things that you post.--THOTH 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just reading this little bit from Bronsart again just makes me laugh particualry when he characterizes the move of Armenians form their homes to the Syrian desert as "to remove them from the border areas to a less inhabited, but fruitful area, to Northern Mesopotamia" - please - everyone can see this for what it is - a propoganda piece - pure and simple and nothing more. And it also has been well shown that Armenians were not just "removed from the border areas"...I really don't think there is need to repeat such. I would also like to add that it is not news that many Armenian men were used as laborers for the Army and workign in the Berlin-Bahgdad Railroad...and were killed over time - some earlier in the war and some not until later. Again - this is nothing new - it is well known and well documented. As to why someone might be surprised that an Armenian man might desert the Ottoman Army after being used as slave labor and after perhaps getting news of the destruction of his family, town, vilaage or what have you...well I will just leave you in the dark on this one I guess..--THOTH 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I witness again neurobio jeopardizing this talk page. But what is intriguing is really his introduction which is meant to justify his copypasting job. Also, I suggest readers here to read his recent writings which were attached to recent copypasting and linking, and compare them with Deepblue. I am amused to see that he now satellite for my dear friend ‘Holdwater.’ Anyway, the reason of my intervention wasn’t this but rather his claim of selective picking. The question here is who between those rejecting the genocide thesis and accepting them, most of the time selectively picks? It is easy to know. It is obvious that supporting the minority view is the way to go when one want to excel in the art of selective picking, since this requires that most of the materials would be ignored intentionally. So it is not surprising, that all which neurobio quoted above (Refik, Nogales, Bronsart), without exception claims that the Armenians were exterminated.

Yes I know your passion for Holdwater. I just dont understand why your great return starts again with weird statement like "and compare them with Deepblue.". what I see below is you again dodge throug solid Armenian sources and talk about the sources that we dont have the full originals. you say "Refik, Nogales, Bronsart), without exception claims that the Armenians were exterminated." and we have to take your word for it...

First, few points to make about Refik, it is kind of amazing that from all people he quote, he would decide also to quote Refik(and from where this quote comes from, again from the very credible tallarmeniantale having the exclusivity not really, as I shall show)), who died because of Ataturk, who made him lose his job, the poor guy couldn’t even be properly treated when sick, and Ataturk made everything to discredit him, because the guy happened to tell history like it should have been told. But even Refik can make mistakes, for the burning in Erzerum, Vehib who investigated is a better source, since he was probably the only who really investigated there. He reports for the same area, in his 12 pages affidavit, quite the contrary. He talks about the burning of Armenians there. The reports of mass burning were corroborated from various sources, from the Jewish group NILI, to personals of the Ottoman army like Lt. Hasan Maruf, to western witnesses like S. S. McClure, to German personal etc.

But, regardless, had Neurobio been honest (which he never was here), he would be humble enough to highlight the period which Refik is referring to, which is the visit of Refik, from April and May 1918, by which time the Ottoman Armenians were gone, the majority vanished, and the fortunate ones run away from the zone controlled by the Ottoman army. The investigation of Vehib in Erzerum precedes Refik report. In fact nowhere in Refik work do we find any justification, or any massacres which would justify in anyway any decisions taken against the Armenians which could have led to their forced evacuation and their destruction. Who was to tell Refik, that the burned remains of Erzerum were mostly those of Armenians, those reported by Vehib the commander of the Third Army? And how the reports by Refik of the Russian Armenians insurrections in 1918 in any relevance with his report of the destruction of Armenians in 1915, preceding 3 years? Selective picking? Well, here we have a case of not only selective picking but also manipulation.

Fadix says "had Neurobio been honest (which he never was here)". Maybe Thoth may have a few words about honesty... if you know what I mean.

So Dadrian or other Armenian sources are selling Refik as an officer in secret service in world war I despite he was out of the army at 1913. He simply flys over all parts regarding Armenian atrocities in the book and selects a part and puts it in his publications. And that is Dadrian style History. "Who was to tell Refik, that the burned remains of Erzerum were mostly those of Armenians" that is perfect. Refik was there him self and he was such a jerk he could not understand the death people were actually Armenians and took theri photos. Lets say he was a jerk but I thouth in 1918 no armenias were left there and their quarters were already demolished burned etc. At least be consistent within your own logic. And this "poor" guy suddenly becomes a valid source When he says a thing that fits genocide claims. I am rather suspicious if this quote is true. will see. "And how the reports by Refik of the Russian Armenians insurrections in 1918 in any relevance with his report of the destruction of Armenians in 1915, preceding 3 years?" are you really following the talk. the point was completely different there...'

Also, it would have been wise for Neurobio to tell us that this source comes from tallarmeniantale, I advice readers to copypast a phrase from Refik quote above, and press and the only link presenting that quote, and read Holdwaters source which is called files of the Armenian genocide of Muslim people. Actually, the title is not a work, it was the title given by Serdar Argic, known to fabricate various quotes, when he posted it in the newsgroups, in fact, Holdwater even copied the pages wrong, since Argic, Holdwaters source, provide the page as 171-172 and NOT 71-72. I really like it, not only tallarmeniantale author was reported to use fabrications as I have demonstrated in the archive of this talkpage, but that I can’t stop laughing that Neurobio reports something from the site of a fabricator, who took a quote from another yet more legendary fabricator who even has his own article in Wikipedia. There is no way confirming anything here than the only instances of crimes perpetrated by Armenians that Refik has reported in various occasions was those of 1918, which were nowhere near and were the product of Kemalistic school of thought. The same goes with Edib, when she does admit Talaat plan of extermination and even quote a discussion both had, and then on the next page, she claims that she wasn’t aware at that time of what Armenians have done. In fact what Armenians allegedly have done in 1914-1915 were authored only after Kemalistic school of thought, which wanted that the decision against the Armenians, was a necessity for the establishment of the Turkish nation.

"provide the page as 171-172 and NOT 71-72" wow that is some forgery man... Lets say Holdwater makes mistakes and Serdar Argic produces quotes. these people are Web masters or Internet appaerences. Yet Dadrian is allegedy a historian... who is busted. And in yerevan Genocide museum lies a section dedicated to FORGED andonian document still presented to Armenian people and visitin Presidents. "fact what Armenians allegedly have done in 1914-1915 were authored only after Kemalistic school of thought" as the Turkish saying put is even the crows will laugh to that. It is interesting that these incidents are documented in Russian archives, Russian Red book, many memoirs of Russian officers and Armenians like A.lalayan, Karinyan, icluding the First armenian priministe Kacaznuni not to mention ottoman archives and army officers.

And all this from Neurobio who gives us an expose about selectiveness and tell us how Turks don’t hate Armenians and how Armenians are brought to hate Turks. He uses the ‘we’ of course, which includes him. Maybe then, Neurobio shall tell us why does he use materials from a racist site, if indeed he doesn’t hate Armenians, but I won’t go there as I accept that my answer here is already outside the purposes of this talkpage, but I considered that it was important to put an end to this copypasting job, and I have realised more than once that they, if not stop, at least are reduced considerably with my presence. I seem to make such an effect, weird.

"Maybe then, Neurobio shall tell us why does he use materials from a racist" that is really meaningles rhetoric. And I really dont hate aremians but one... "if not stop, at least are reduced considerably with my presence. I seem to make such an effect" one really wonders why.. LOL...

Anyway, let stick to answering the material. Now Nogales, another individual who claims Armenians being exterminated, this is even more interesting, as Nogales was wanted by the British for war crimes and his participation in the East, his home country didn’t even wanted him to return after the war, for what he did in the East. The guy was a mercenary, who was paid to raze Armenian towns to the ground, by entirely cannonading them. Had Neurobio read his book, I doubt he would have quoted him. As he report extermination, and I can plainly quote from the book, which I have. Nogales accuse Armenians in every events which he is involved, while he even shows himself as someone who tried preventing their massacres, and then blame the Turkish authorities in acts which he was not involved. His book was apologistic to absolve himself from the accusations directed at him. That he was dragged in Cevided division and served under his guard speaks volume of his participation. It doesn’t take long when someone read the introduction of his work and how he ended in the Turkish army to know that this man was doing everything humanly possible to be dragged in such an expedition, hungry of blood. He was refused everywhere else and has gone to serve later for the ‘enemy’ side just because arm in his hands soldiers under his order going on the front to shout at people. While sanitised, his work still, more particularly his description of the Armenian cathedral he cannonaded to the ground to know his mental state. Of course he justified it by complete fabrications that couldn’t even convince him. One in particular, is when he claimed that an armed group surrounded by the Turkish army, and with limited bullet reserves wasted countless numbers of bullets by shutting on an elderly woman while this would have inevitably ended by their death, emptying their bullet supply while the entire town was razed by Nogales contingent and cannonaded to the ground. No wonder no one else wanted him in their army, as the only uses of a gun one could find him is as a psychopath hungry of blood becoming a serial killer.

"Now Nogales, another individual who claims Armenians being exterminated" thus said great the Fadix without showing anything as usual. and then smeared the guy since most of his words must be against Armenians especially where he says all armenians in the Turkis army deserted and joined Russians. But Armenian story tells us they are butchered. I see your logic even if he said Armenians were exterminated since they rebled and deserted en masse it is no genocide...

As for Bronsart, Bronsart who was the German Chief of staff of Enver, Bronsart was in a mission in Transcaucasia from 1914 and early 1915, he participated in the attack of Russian lines and they were repulsed abruptly, in part because of the strong defence of the Russian Armenians on the front. He was also one of those invited in the meeting in which the evacuation of the Armenians was proposed and the replacement of the Armenians with the Germans, one of the purposes of the Baghdad railroad project. It was one of Bronsart mission to accuse Armenians to justify the decisions taken against them. But he never actually denied in closed doors the destruction, and his admission was not that Armenians attacked and destroyed, but that because of the Armenians ‘parasitic’ nature (he compares them with the Polish Jews), this brought hate against them and led to their destruction. Here is what he had to say: Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—just like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder. (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-8), p. 4, February 10,1919).

Ha typical Armenian smear. Smear when he says something wrong then use the other sections for your wish. if he said Armenians were exterminated why are u tring to waste guy. from now on do not write long paragraphs. Just write "Smear... Smear" it should do...

Finally to conclude, there are hundreds and hundreds of newspapers regarding the Armenian massacres, we doubt of the honesty of someone, when he start quoting the few which support his position, but not so, as after verifying them from the same site, even those don’t support him, and also from the same site, there is a clear and obvious disproportion between the reports talking about the destruction of the Armenians and the few ones after selective quoting which could appear supporting Neurobio point. The disproportion is so significant that it renders the newspapers supporting his theses like non-existent. There have been newspaper coverage in WWII and little bit prior it, about Jewish declaration of war against Germany, using Neurobio logic, not only the rest of the newspapers representing the majority, quoting them would be selectiveness, but also that the Shoah did not happen. But, fortunately, we don’t leave the fate of articles in the hand of people like Neurobio.

Yes I know you have an Archive of Newspapers which is like 100 page as if a genocide can be proven via newpaper articles. You see I dont have a antiGenocide web pages where I present these but you have a lot of pages where Armenians present them but only the ones that fit to their purpose. it is funny that you blame me of something that you do systematicly. "The disproportion is so significant" correct...! But as you do know very well if Armenian participated in battle, deserted and joined the enemy, took up arms, construcded a goverment in Van the Genocide thesis is no more as simple as that. then no matter if 1. mil were killed it is Massacre in terms of law not Genocide. I dont take newspapers seriously I just answer your friends question with your favorite sources.

Also could you please give us your comments about the Armenian Testimonies where they describe how they hid, amased weapons, deserted the Army, Joined Russians and Armenian volunteers, fought and killed Turks. neurobio 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I hope copypasting job ends by this. Fad (ix) 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

neurobio and whoever else, at least when you do a rebuttle, DON'T DO IT IN BETWEEN WHAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS WRITTEN!!!!!! It ruins the continuity of the talkpage and borders on vandlaism since you re technically editing what someone else said, or make it a little more obvious by bolding what your response is. To the wikipedia editor if you aren't well versed on this subject DO NOT EDIT talk page unless you have good explanation.KingVegeta2000 05:24 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. they are in italic now.neurobio 12:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ians

Most of the sources are from writers whose names end with "ian". Why not any Turkish source, because wikipedia is taken over by bunch of Armenians. I see them everywhere, every related article. I see their profile pages, full of hatred against Turkey and Turks. I'm a Turk who recognizes Armenian Genocide but what I see on wikipedia makes me think again. If you want Turkish people to recognize Armenian Genocide, you should treat them like humans. It's a simple advice, though I don't think anyone ever going to concern.

Check the first two names at the top of the article's bibliography section. No -ians or -yans there.The Myotis 17:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"decimating it in its entirety"

Decimating means killing 10%

Did the Russians decimate the III Army or destroy it? chrisboote 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To decimate also means "To severely reduce; to destroy almost completely", see wikt:decimate. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, did the author mean annihilate (destroy completely) or decimate (kill 1 in 10)? I'm confused by "decimating it in its entirety". The author might have never looked the word up. The phrase also seems redundant. Tchite 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)tchiteTchite 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly unusual to use decimate according to its original Latin root these days. Most English speakers would understand it to mean something like 'devastate', i.e. inflict very heavy losses, which would probably be rather greater than 10%. I don't know, maybe a 1/3 if you want to put a figure on it.

I agree though that 'decimating in its entirety' is bad English. Destroying would be better.

--Merlinme 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The link reference: "Russians Slaughter Turkish III^rd Army: Give No Quarter to Men Held Responsible for the Massacre of Armenians" is fairly clear, so I've rewritten this section to be make it clearer who did what to whom, and how many Turks died, i.e. the III army was destroyed, not decimated.

--Merlinme 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk

Does anyone have any information on Ataturk's involvement in the genocide, whether that he was or wasn't involved? If so, please visit the Ataturk discussion page --AW 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Atatürk was never involved in the Genocide, at least not directly. The closest connection to the event that he had was joining the Committee of Union and Progress and that he later denounced the actions of the former Young Turks to a Los Angeles Times reporter. He seems to have turned a blind eye to the fate of the Armenians in İzmir and the parts of Russian Armenia annexed in the Treaty of Kars. -- Clevelander 23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk was busy fighting at Gallipoli while the Genocide was taking place. One can argue that he prolonged the massacres and suffering when he attacked Armenia in 1918 but his role in planning is non-existant.--MarshallBagramyan 23:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk had no involvement in the Armenian Genocide, but like Marshall said, when he attacked the Armenian Republic after the Genocide he severely hampered the effort to take care of the masses of refugees and survivors.--Eupator 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide lasted till 1918 (Armenian Genocide#Casualties, 1914 to 1918). Ataturk was in the Caucasus in 1916, and he was given the rank of Major General on April 1, 1916. i do not know if he had to do anything with planning, but he was in the area the Genocide took place, and he also had much power. Hectorian 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is accurate and I'm glad you brought it up. Still - I am not aware of any eyewitness or documentary evidence that links Ataturk in any way with the genocide of the Armenians during this period. This is not to say that he had no involvement - but certainly we cannot claim that he was involved (at this time) as there is no evidence proving such. Remember that besides some leveling of towns and villages and killing of Armenian males in military work gangs (all of which had primarily been accomplished in 1915 and certainly by early 1916) the Ottoman military was primarily a professional force that was concerned with defense of the Empire. Aside from certain oficers placed by the CUp or who otherwise had racist views - the vast majority of Tukish military senior officers did not take part in genocidal activities and many were in fact appauled by such and opposed (or more accuratly who later expressed distaste and objected to what had been done by the CUP). Aside from the killing of Armenian males in the Ottoman military (that was done by Ottoman military units) the Genocide against the Armenians was perpetrated/directed by first and foremost the CUP party aparatus that influenced/coerced and or recieved the willing cooporation from local Ottoman (civilian) Governmental Officials and who used the substansal gendarme forces to carry out their edicts. Secondly, the CUP employed the Special Organization that initially reported through the Ottoman military (and were known as Enver's special units) - though once senior military commanders came to understand the true intention/mission of the Special organization and in some cases call for its disbanment and arrest of its (senior CUP) officers the organization was placed exclusively under the control of Talat and the Ministry of Interior - an Ottoman civilian component. Of course the Armenain genocide had a great deal of participation from Kurdish and Circasian and other (Balkan & Turkic Caucasian) gangs (culled from former displaced Muslims/Turks (who had an axe tro grind vis a vis Orthodox Christians and of course from the masses of Ottoman peseantry who both plundered and harrasssed/took out their frustrations (and more) on the poor defensless Armenians (often in direct response to calls from the local Islamic cleric to enact a just jihad against the infidel Armenians. Anyway I think pursueing Ataturk for unproven/unprovable crimes during the Genocide period is not likely to be time well spent or something very useful. --THOTH 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy any of this, various scholars knows Ataturk was far from being a saint when it comes to the Armenians, but yet would prefer shuting knowing how this man is considered to be a god incarnate in Turkey. The Young Turk ex-minister of finances (who've sent millions of gold mark worth blocked in German banks from what was looted from the Armenians) was the nearest collaborator of Bekir Sami during the London Conferences, and misteriouslly appeared as a Kemalists, I doubt Kemal was crying when he used the looted money for the modernisation of his Turkey. Yunus Nadi Bey, who was as well in the Turkish delegation in London was deputy of Smyrna (neadless to say how those Smyrna autorities were angry at Sanders when he threatned them if those Armenians were to be evacuated); he was the leader of the “Yeni Gün” that was the principal Kemalist organ. Doctor Ziya Nur, considered by some the father of the neo-Turkism, was the private advisor of Youssouf Kemal (he himself found a place in the Kemalist administration), the then-minister of foreign affairs. Ahmed Nessimi Bey, the minister of foreign affairs under Talaat’s government, had leading roles in the Kemalistic administration. Sami Bey was placed at the head of the postal and telegraphic services at Ankara. Furthermore many pan-Turkists like Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Husseinzade Ali, Ziya Gökalp, Köprülüzade Fuat, Mehmet Emin, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haidar, Halide Edip, Celal Nuri, Falih Rifki, and Yacub Kadri, among others, were introduced in the Kemalist administration. Not to say how the Kemalists prepared an invasion of a group for butchers detained at Malta which the British were refusing to liberate under any circumstances, among those Djevdet the governor of Van. Or not to say how Halil was liberated from detention and sent to a mission in the East by the Kemalists after his close implications in the butcheries, and we all know what was his mission as Paraquin was very clear about them. But the the worst of, is that Ataturk even sent Karabekir who was his compagnon of arm to join Halil in his mission.

The two district governors who had a leading role in the genocide, Kemal and Nusret who were executed by the Kemalist government (the real reason was that Kemal was a dictator, much like Sadam who was ordering the death of any potential leaders who could be a threat for him), were considered as “national martyrs” their families received large sums of money, and this under the Kemalist regime. Nusret got a region, a school, and a street in Urfa in his name; in Bogazliyan, Kemal was honoured with the erection of his statue in the public square. Ankara’s government also allocated pensions for the families of those executed by Armenian “avengers,” such as the families of Talaat and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir. Of, and what happened to the sicko doctor who poisoned countless numbers of Armenian children? While two of his colleagues testified on court, the Kemalists had done anything to liberate him even forced those who have issued the report to backpeddle.

What about Alexandripole? Isen't it at all amazing that the Kemalists have send known butchers of the Armenians, alongside with commanders and even members of the special organization to destroy the newly founded Armenian republic?

The list is long, of the many things Ataturk has done, so saying that he was not involved with the genocide is not to be proud of, since this man has much blood in his hand. He was simply a hypocrit, not a wolf but an aghvess, every messages or speech allegedly caring for Armenians is just BS. Evidence? Alone what his delegation did in Lausanne is sufficient evidence. They have threatned to bring down Ani to the ground and have threatned the little piece which was left to the Armenians if they were to not obtain what they wanted.

The German records document what was the Kemalists intention when invading Armenia, or what was done to the Armenian orphans, and this even from Edib the Kemalist.

Should any of those be added in Ataturks page? I don't know, since I consider that page as a joke, it is much easy to criticise the Armenian Genocide page, while it has large section about the anti-theses, while in the past the critics about Ataturk was sliced to creat a FORK, and under the FORK policy been deleted. Any Turk who comes here and bothers and hit his head on the wall, should first see how the Ataturk page is garded. I believe that before mentioning anything about the Armenians, the large section about the Kurds which was succefully deleted be added back, and what he Kemalist regime did with them is just much more than a fringe. Fad (ix) 04:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has sympathy for him; Ataturk's entire cabinet was made up of former officials who were complicit in planning the Genocide and him not being there in 1915 doesn't change the fact that the man attacked a fragmented country for all sorts of nefarious reasons, nevermind him being a dictator.--MarshallBagramyan 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop calling ataturk a dictator, if it wasn't for him, there would be no such thing as democracy in the middle east —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mert Baris Akgul (talk • contribs)

Was he elected when he came to power? Until when he was elected if he ever was? Stalin and Lenin were both dictators, the URSS would have never become a possible entity without him, doesn't hange the fact that he was a ditator. Fad (ix) 14:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk was no more of a dictator than George Washington. If anything, he is the man who brought democracy to Turkey and gave Turkish women the right to vote while French and Swiss women still had to put up with their husbands decisions. From your past behavior it is clear that you are a Turk hater, but for the sake of truth,please, stop bending backwards in your ridiculous attempts to discredit anything Turkish.Ataturk was NOT a dictator, because the very people he supposedly ruled never viewed him as such. What a Canadian Armenian thinks of the founder of the Turkish Republic is irrelevant. --140.180.4.109 18:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses all. The reason I brought it up is because I was trying to add a "Criticisms" section to Ataturk, and the Armenian National Institute claims says he "consummated" the Armenian Genocide. --AW 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Systen of a Down song

I just wanted to say that the song by SoaD called "X" leads to a single by British popgroup Liberty X. Since the article is locked, I cannot change it. --Soetermans 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

? Relevance? SOAD deserves but a minor footnote...IMO. --THOTH 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but a wrong link is a wrong link nontheless. --Soetermans 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I understand now (and perhaps this was done as a vandalism - who knows) - but I thought you were saying that the song inspired this other groups to write/record some related song ro such...lol...and was thinking my - this is getting way off the mark. SO OK understand now...--THOTH 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The validity of Orhan Pamuk

Is Orhan Pamuk a novelist or historian? How can he be so sure about the reality of history? In other words, who DID give advice of what he should say? Zkaradag 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The reality of history? He's a novelist, not a philosopher. yandman 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, why does give speech about historical issues ? LOOLLLZkaradag 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Money paid to Fatma Muge Gocek

I am not sure the reality but based on the news from gossip newspaper (as you had done so far) Fatma Gocek had taken an incredible amount of money from Zoryan Institue! Is there anyone who can explain this? Zkaradag 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha I think you answered your own question by citing your source as a gossip newspaper. Also I don't think its valid to start a new topic based on a gossip newspaper.KingVegeta2000 07:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is more relevant (and factual) I think is the money Dennis Hastert and others have taken from various Turkish groups...and other such things (consistant with an aggressive Turrkish Government sponsored campaign of Genocide denial). And even if true - perhaps Gochek is writing a book or such as Zoran does sponsor such things. Instead of ad hominem attacks against the messanger your would do better to actually read what schoars (including Turks like Akcam) are saying - you might actually learn something. --THOTH 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to learn how much zoryan institute offer for us (tsa/uoft) to organize a conference in order to their thesis? Zkaradag 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No but perhaps a page on the Turkish Historical Society is in order...or an expose on Turkish Government funding of lobbyists and establishment of acadmic chairs at American Universities (and the stringgs attached for reserchers in Ottoman history and so on...but really now - do you have anything of substance to add to the article or are you just looking for someone to put you in touch with David Irving inhopes of getting some grant money yourself?--THOTH 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Turkish Position

Well, I attempted to clarify the Turkish position better, since as a Turkish person I am confident I know the position of my nation better, but alias all-knowing Armenians such as Marshall have corrected me even on my own nation's position. Maybe he will be so good as to describe which of what I wrote below was wrong?

At present, the overwhelming majority of the people and the government of the Republic of Turkey, as well as those of neighbouring Azerbiajan, do not accept the label of genocide, view the deaths of Armenians during World War 1 as part of a civil war and prefer to refer to the events as a relocation, adeportation or a massacre. Nationalist lawyers have often used Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code that prohibits insulting "Turkishness" to persucate intellectuals based on their views regarding the Armenian massacres; but Turkish courts have acquitted the prosecutees in all of the cases, except that of Turkish Armenian writer Hrant Dink. The Turkish government has frequently protested against recognition of the genocide by other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.4.109 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 November 2006.

noted --THOTH 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yetkan Turkyilmaz

A Turkish scholar at Duke University who uses the g-word to describe the events. In 2005 he visitted Armenia to research the Armenian archives and he has been arrested and imprisoned in a top security prison by the Armenian regime, which of course resulted in an international outcry and was a major embarassment for the Armenian diaspora. Turkyilmaz, has fortunately been released unharmed, but some of his research was confiscated. More info here

http://www.yektan.org/

The writers of the article have spend so much energy describing abuses and arrests against intellectuals in Turkey, how they have missed this major event with Turkyilmaz is a mystery to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.4.109 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 November 2006.

I'm not to familiar with this situation of the past or the present is there any articles or news sources to this please? Nareklm 06:03, 25 November 2006

(UTC)

If you go to the website, you will no doubt find many newsource. Published news about him:

   *  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Turkish Scholar Uses Armenian Archives For Ottoman History Research," May 11, 2005
   * Associated Press, "Turkish Researcher Arrested in Armenia on Suspicion of Smuggling Antique Books," June 17, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Turkish Scholar Arrested In Armenia For 'Smuggling' Bid," June 20, 2005
   * Turkish Daily News, "A Turkish Scholar Arrested in Armenia," by Elif Safak, July 31, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Arrested Turkish Scholar Denies Smuggling Charges," August 1, 2005
   * The Economist (London, U.K.), "Turkish History and the Armenians: When History Hurts," August 4, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Mother Pleads For Turkish Scholar's Release From Armenian Jail," August 8, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Trial Of Arrested Turkish Scholar Opens In Yerevan," August 9, 2005
   * Inside Higher Ed, "Far Away Trial," August 11, 2005
   * BBC, "The World," "Duke Student Detained in Armenia," August 11, 2005
   * 168 Zham (Yerevan, Armenia), August 11, 2005, summarized by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report
   * The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Scholars Ask Armenia to Free Jailed Student," August 12, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Turkish Scholar Insists On His Innocence In Court," August 12, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Opposition Leader Shocked By Turkyilmaz Prosecution," August 12, 2005
   * Oneworld Multimedia Blog, "Turkyilmaz Trial," August 15, 2005 (with photos from the same day's hearing)
   * Chicago Tribune, "Turkish Scholar's Detention Contested," August 15, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "U.S. University Renews Calls For Turkish Student’s Release," August 15, 2005
   * Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Armenia Report, "Turkish Scholar Freed After Two-Month Arrest In Armenia," August 16, 2006

And here are open letters calling upon the Armenian regime to free him:

   * Open Letter by the Middle East Studies Association to the Armenian Ambassador to the United States, June 23, 2005
   * Open Letter by 257 Scholars to President Kocharian, July 29, 2005
   * Scholars in Danger: Social Science Research Council (New York, USA), July 29, 2005
   * Open Letter by the Society for Armenian Studies to President Kocharian, July 30, 2005
   * Students in Solidarity With Yektan Turkyilmaz, August 1, 2005
   * Open Letter by Former U.S. Senator Robert Dole to President Kocharian, August 2, 2005 (PDF file)
   * Rapid Action Network Alert by International PEN (London, UK), August 4, 2005
   * Alert by International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) (Toronto, Canada), August 5, 2005
   * Alert by American Association for the Advancement of Science, Human Rights Action Network, August 5, 2005
   * Letter of Gratitude by Former U.S. Senator Robert Dole to President Kocharian, August 17, 2005 (PDF file)

I am surprised you have never heard of him, while you have heard of some obscure cases against Turkish writers in Istanbul.

So no mention yet on Tukyilmaz arrest by the Armenian regime in the article? What are the proponents of this genocide afraid of?--140.180.4.109 17:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - Armenian scholars, non-Armenian genocide scholars and various Armenian diasporan political groups and such also called for his release....however I don't see how his brief detainiment has any relevance to the Armenian Genocide. As you say - he has affirmed his belief in the Armenian Genocide - so how can you say that he was detained (by Armenia) for his views on the Genocide? He was not contradicting the view hapd by Armenia/Armenians. This incident is of no relevence to the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the diaspora called for his release, for the diaspora Armenian scholars it was a major embarrassment. And of course you do not see the point of his "brief" (2 months!) detainment (in a top security Armenian prison!). He was after all the first Turkish scholar to ever access Armenian archives and he was arrested because he dared study the Armenian archives and compare them against the Ottoman ones. Maybe the Armenian KGB feared he would discover a little secret about the Armenian Genocide, that you and your government did not want the world to learn about? Why else would his research materials be throughly scrutinized and his books confiscated? But I better shut up. I do not wish to destroy the picture of Turkish denialism that you are trying to paint. Arrests in Armenia should be ignored, because the raise uncomfortble questions, let's just focus on the arrests in Turkey - they are so usefyl to paint these pesky Turks as denialists.

The bias here just defies beleif! But just a friendly advice, if you are ever to prove to the Turkish people that what happened was indeed a Genocide against your people, you better stop arresting Turkish scholars.--140.180.4.109 02:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never arrested anyone - so I don't see how your comments are of any value or relevance here. Likewise at best you provide amaturish and faulty speculation that is of no value to the article. You basically have just wasted a lot of space here.--THOTH 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop evading the question, and give me one single compelling reason as to why this "brief detainment" in Armenia, as you called the 2 month long imprisonment of a Turkish scholar in a top security prison, is not included in the article, while some clown trials in Turkey are? Why are you censoring this information? --140.180.4.109 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the sources on your site, he was detained on suspicion of smuggling rare antique books, which certainly would merit a long detainment (if convicted, a prison sentence of up to five years) as investigating such a crime, with the limited resources Armenia has available, would certainly take time. As for calling Armenia a ‘regime’ is nothing more than a crude attempt to smear an elected president in one of the most democratic of the Caucasian republics. In any case, he was released and was only charged with illegal customs, so the only thing you can really charge the Hayastan republic with is taking to long. Of course, we all know the real reason he has not gotten that much attention; he does not deny the Armenian Genocide; and so giving him attention is not in Turkey's best intrests. In any case the situation has no direct connections to the Armenian genocide, and so deserves no mention in this wikipedia article either way.The Myotis 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the source, he was jailed by the regime in Yerevan under a law which mentions nothing of books, but "raw materials of cultural value". The initial reason for the arrest that was given to Yetkan was that "All scholars are spies". Yetkan had researched on the activites of Armenian nationalist organizations during WW1. What was so sensitive about the research of this Duke University Student and what prompted the regime in Yerevan to immediately arrest him remains a mystery. His story is told in great detail on this site:

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/111205/yektan1.html

--140.180.4.109 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And you don't consider an antique novel a 'raw material of cultural value'? The arrest still has no direct correlation to Genocide - either denial or support - and there is nothing, not even something from Yetkan himself - to suggest that he 'found something' that would suggest an alternative thesis. The article also says that Yetkan was released despite being convicted of smuggling; they certainly did not prosecute to the full extent of the law. Unless you can connect this incedent directly to AG, and find me some hard proof that the arrest was due to something he 'found', then you have nothing to talk about.The Myotis 02:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously act as an apologist for the Armenian regime in this absurd trial, which was denounced in most of the free world, including the Armenian diaspora but this is beyond the point. What I still fail to understand is why do you consider the trials in Turkey against Elif Safak and Orhan Pamuk to be mention worthy, whereas that of Turkyilmaz is not. What's the difference? --140.180.4.109 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is no Armenian 'Regime'. It is a democratic multiparty country, just like (if not better than) any other part of the former Soviet Union. I don't call Turkey's Goverment a regime, despite my disgreement with it, and I don't think it would be too much trouble for you to do vice versa. Why this is not worth mentioningin this article is simple: it does not directly relate to the genocide, it's recognition, or it's denial. If he was arrested for denying genocide, he would be worth mentioning in the article. If he was detained because he supported the genocide thesis, the same would be true. What happened here was clearly neither of those. If you just want to criticize the Armenian government, you're welcome to do it somewhere else.The Myotis 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And how do the trials in Turkey help any of the wikipedia readers appreciate what took place in WW1? They just help you portray Turkey and the entire Turkish nation as denialists, whereas the imprisonment of Turkyilmaz is something you would rather hide, because the incident shows how jealously the Armenian regime guards its state archives against any outside interference. The research by Yetkin could have shown the revolutionary activities of the Armenians and how they killed Moslems in order to create their ethnically pure Armenian state on Moslem land. But you do not want this to be known, because it spoils the onesided genocide against Armenians only image that you are trying to paint.--140.180.4.109 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Say what you want, but there is no section in the article for wild speculation and conspiracy theories. The instance does not relate to the genocide, not according to Yetkin or those who arrested him. We will base the article on what the evidence suggests, not your own POV suspicions. Go to the Holocaust page try and prove that the European Jews were communist revolutionaries who were allied with the Soviet Union to bring down Germany, and you will get a similar response.The Myotis 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article mention the clown trials in Turkey? How do they help wikipedia readers appreciate what took place in WW1? Answer please! --128.112.37.9 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It relates to the ongoing issues that surround the event. The Holocaust article has a section on holocaust denial. Even if you do not believe the evidence is strong, modern-day incidents directly related to an events' recognition do deserve mention. If Iran's denial of the events of the Second World War deserve mention, so does Turkey's denial of what happened in the second. Neither of them directly relate to the event, or help them 'appreciate what took place', but there they are there they will stay.The Myotis 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be a thousand times better talking to a brick wall. The bias in selectively mentioning only the trials in Turkey, while totally ignoring the imprisonment of scholars in Armenia, is evident to anybody with a gram of objectivity. Your attempts to draw parallels to and yet again model this perceived Genocide on the Holocaust are nothing but poor. Israel, unlike the Armenian genocide proponents, does not go about arresting and imprisoning scholars who research the Holocaust.--140.180.4.109 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are running the argument in circles. Since I presume English is not your first language, I will put this in as simply as I can. Yetkin was not arrested for his position the genocide. The scholars in Turkey were. If a scholar researching the Holocaust was arrested in Israel, on an unrelated charge, you can bet it would not be on the Holocaust page. If you want to attack the Armenian government, do it elsewhere.The Myotis 02:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The scholars in Turkey were never arrested as you allege, they were sued for insulting "Tukishness" by a well nationalist group of lawyers, and were without exception acquitted by the courts. Yetkin Turkyilmaz, on the other hand, was actually arrested and imprisoned in Armenia for 2 months in a top security prison, because he was allegedly "spying" by studying the Armenian archives. During his illegal detention he was specifically questioned on his beliefs on the Armenian genocide, which in itself constitutes a flagrant interference with his scholarly research. This incident clearly show the inability of the Armenian state to tolerate any dissent and critical evaluation of the events of 1915. To claim that his arrest is unrelated to his views and opinions on the Armenian Genocide is a blatant misrepresentation of reality - something that you apparently are very good at. --Hasanidin 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve said it once, I'll say it again, he wasn't arrested due to his position on the genocide. The questions he was asked, while perhaps unethical, do not prove that was why he was arrested, nor was it what he was prosecuted for. Since he has defined the 1915 as genocide (and still does) the government would have no reason to arrest him. And if they wanted to prevent him from 'critically evaluating' the archives, they would have prevented him from coming in the first place, not arrested him with undeclared old books on the way out. He, too, was never successfully charged and was released. (P.S., Baristarim, never delete a post like you did just there)The Myotis 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

How can something be a genocide when at the time it was not. The term genocide was invented as long as 30 years after the events of 1915. To take the events out of their historical context, and to judge them by present standards or the standards of a different historical era is a common fallacy of historical science.

You do realize there were genocides before the Armenian genocide and there specifically labeled a genocide the person who invented the word genocide used it to describe the Armenian genocide, Turkish historians claim only 300,000 died during the "Genocide" to there terms but i don't accept that since many died from disease but the turks forced them to leave there houses they killed and deported them and made them walk till they died. Also why do you think Armenians are scattered around the world. Nareklm 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of the annihilation of the Cicassians (Cherkez) by the Russians, but rarely is that called a Genocide, and is now largely forgotten. Other massacres preceeding or following the Armenian were never called a genocide, simply because that word did not exist back then. Lemkin may have made a reference to the Armenians when he invented the word, but the fact remains that at the time Armenians were killed their killings were not called a genocide. The Amenian insistance on the word is based more on present politics than any objective study of historical science.The past wounds are still open and hatred between Turks and Armenian is still alive, especially because of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, and this dispute on the Genocide is more about the attempts of both sides to overleap the other in their quest for victimhood and western sympathy, than any objective study of history. --140.180.4.109 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what killings you exactly mean the Armenians have had conflicts since 1896 and up other than that we lived in peace until the government did crazy things. There have been so many massacres, ethnic cleansing , murder's among our nationalities its hard to keep up. Nareklm 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The killings of the Circassians is just one such example

The Circassian people lived north of Caucasus in Circassia (they are also known as Cherkez). The Russian invasion of Circassia was accompanied by the total annihilation of the Circassian tribes Pskhu, Akhtsipsou and Aibg and Jigit to the last man, woman and child. The remainder of the Circassians were to be deported to the Ottoman Empire. The deportations began on 28 May 1864. They took place under horrendous conditions. The Russian historian Berzhe bore witness to the state of the Circassians even as they awaited deportation on the Black Sea shore:

I shall never forget the overwhelming impression made on me by the mountaineers in Nvorissiisk Bay, where about seventeen thousand of them were gathered on the shore. The late, inclement and cold time of the year, the almost complete absenve of means of subsistence and the epidemic of typhus and smallpox , raging among them made their situation desperate. And indeed, whose heart would not be touched on seeing, for example, the already stiff corpse of a young Circassian woman lying in rags on the damp ground under the open sky with two infants, one struggling in his death throes while the other sought the assuage his hunger at his dead mother’s breast? And I saw not a few such scenes. Those that had survived the ordeal thus far were herded on by Russians soldiers en mass on to barges and small Turkish and Greek ships, loaded with several times passengers as they could carry. Many sank and their passengers drowned in open sea. For those who survived the voyage, conditions on arrival in Turkey were no less horrific. The arrangements made by the Turkish government to receive and resettle the migrants were grossly inadequate. George Ditson, the first American to visit Circassia, in a book dedicated to Prince Vorontsov cites the Russian ruler of the Caucasus as saying:

These Circassians are just like your American Indians - as untamable and uncivilized ... and owing to their natural energy of character, extermination only would keep them quiet.

Today, the annihilation of the Circassians is not only unrecognized, but is mostly forgotten. Well, I guess the final stage of Genocide, which is oblivion, is now complete.

Whether or not the "ethnic cleansing" of Circassians should be considered as "genocide' is perhaps the subject of discussion for another article with no direct relevance here. As for chracterizing what occured to the Armeninas as "genocide" - I think that this has been more then well established in the archives of these talk pages. There are several references to scholarly sources and sources such as genocide organizations and United nations tribunals and such whichmake it clear that the Armenian experience in WWI clearly meets all possible definitions of genocide. --THOTH 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian experience meets the definition of genocide, but at the time it did not because there was no concept of genocide. By the way Cirassians are quite relevant in fact, because when the Russian invasion was reversed they did actively participate in what you call an Armenian Genocide. Regarding your claim that UN tribunals refer to the Armenian massacres as a genocide - this of course is a figment of your imagination. Under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Armenian allegations fall short. The UN has never mentioned nor recognized a Genocide of Armenians in an official document, and that is why in your quest for recognition you have to rely mostly on scholastic papers and academic conjectures.

http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/Table_Of_Contents/genocide_docs_ppt_verdict.htm --THOTH 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the best you could find? The Zoryan Institue - the moutpiece of Armenian propaganda? Show us the official UN documents which mention an Armenian Genocide explicitly.--140.180.4.109 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

did I tell you that some people gathered students in our university and found George Bush guilty of war crimes. This is simply as significant as that. Maybe less significant since it is a sponsored show.

this peoples tribunal was held by a NGO, self declared "human right organisation". it is not a court or tribunal. they held a meeting in Sorbonne(if I remember correctly) university and gave the "verdict" in two days without a defendant. So this was simply an Armenian sponsored circus. it is a decoy to fool naive public opinion. After being rejected by UN they started these sponsored shows and Fantasticly they even write Armenian contributers(sponsors) name there. The only international court which can judge a Genocide case is the international Lahey court of justice. The court is there waiting for aplications but Armenians do not dare. one wonders why...

The answer is simple the Genocide Convention do not protect Armed and political groups. And Armenian aims of independent Armenia within Ottoman borders and their Armed rebelions (resistance if you wish) is so damm well documented that there is simply no Armenian Genocide in terms of Law. That is why Armenians can not go to the only place to go the Lahey international court of justice. Soon there may be a first in history a country will apply to a court to prove that she is not guitly. Funny that instead of Armenia, Turkey is seriously considering to apply this court. Becuse the Turkish document arsenal is simply robust not "this guy told the other guy Turks killed 1.5 milion" style. In terms of Law there is no genocide.neurobio 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The never ending fallacies recycled Argumentum ad nauseam. Doesn’t matter if one address the issue thousands of times, the thing will still be brought, again and over again, the energizer bunny stand no chance at all.

Article 34 of the Hague. First section (I). Only states may be parties in cases before the Court. Charges of genocide, parties concerned, Ottoman Armenians (not a state) vs Ottoman Empire (there is no such state existing now in 2006).

Article 35 of the Hague. First section (I). The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute. The present statute under the court jurisdiction neither includes Ottoman Armenians, neither does it include the Ottoman Empire.

Exception? Yeh, here it is on the Section two (II) of the same article. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court. So, even if such state as the Ottoman Empire existed in 2006 and that the Ottoman Armenians were considered as a state, there still could be no trial under Hague, because this should be decided by the Security Council, and given that it has happened in 1915, it isn’t under the jurisdiction of the Security Council(see the Security Council mandate). There is no article of law or sections, or subsections in the Statutes of the International court of justice which would permit to do what neurobio is nauseamingly repeating. The only possible cases would have been if there was still a war criminal who is still living and that Armenia in the name of its citizens of Ottoman descent apply to Hague to judge such a criminal. Unless neurobio could name a single individual who has ever been accused still alive, he shall bring it on, or stop trashing this talk page with things he ignore but being naive enough that people will actually thing that he is ever saying anything relevant in regard to the article which this talk page is supposed to be about. The Hague is waiting the Armenians applicating? In various occasions Armenian lawyers have tried submitting the cases, but there is no article of law which applies to a cases, which involve parties which are not current states, and involve judging war criminals who are not alive. It isen't and sure will not be the first time that revisionists will use things which they know are not applicable to fool others.

Neurobio, while still claiming he is not prejudicial and doesn't hate Armenians all he wants, still expose himself more he post. He claims that political groups and armed groups are not included under the UN convention. The definition of political group refers to political parties, this introduction in the UN convention was as an exclusion to the NAZI prisoners of war and the report of their illtreatment by the Soviet army. Those were considered as an armed and political group. Even Justin McCarthy has claimed that under the UN convention what happened to the Armenians indeed qualify as genocide(McCarthy simply dismiss the UN COnvention of genocide). So when neurobio tries applying the title of political and armed group to the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, he is doing much the same as those Holocaust revisionists who claims that what happened to the Jews in WWII doesn't qualify as genocide, because the Jews were a political group, they were Zionists (much like when equating Armenians with the Tashnaks), and and armed group (referring to their defenses in the ghettos). Fad (ix) 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You Fadix should be the last one to accuse others of being Armenian haters. You, and you alone are a twisted Turk hater and you have made a sport of Turk bashing here and in other forums. I have observed your behavior and opinions for long enough to know what kind of an Armenian ultra nationalist you are.

Your insistence on applying the UN convention retroactively is absurd. For example under the UN convention of Genocide what happened to the Native Americans also qualifies as an act of Genocide, but is not referred to as such because back then it was not. Judging the events of 1915 by a convention and a word that were invented 30 years later are counter to standard historical practices. Even your ancestors did not call to the event as a Genocide back then. Judging past events by presents standards is a common historical fallacy, one that you are cleverly exploiting in your attempts to gain a status of eternal victimhood.--140.180.4.109 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really, and any example of any hateful comment directed against the Turks, I'm sure you have access to countless numbers of my posts from various forums, feel free to point to any. On the other hand, neurobio has used various 'Armenian qualifiers' in few months in a way that you can't find any from my part in my years of contributions in all internet forms combined. As for the genocide convention, the Armenian cases was a subject of a UN 1948 report regarding the massacre, one of the study cases before the introduction of the genocide convention. Various publications of the period referred to the Armenian cases as example, few examples are those published in The American Journal of International Law, for example in The Genocide Convention and State Rights, Arthur K. Kuhn (Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1949), pp. 498-501); The United Nations Convention on Genocide, Josef L. Kunz (Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 738-746). Not to say that Raphael Lemkin included it as part of the definition. This has nothing to do with retroactive application, even though under international law genocide applicability is indeed retroactive. Fad (ix) 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fraid you're wrong there bub (and this was commisioned by TARC under Turkish pressure BTW - of course Turks chose to disband TARC and ignore the verdict when it went against them...) http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.244/current_category.5/affirmation_detail.html --THOTH 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Show us the UN document that calls the Armenian experience of 1915 an act of Genocide. Why are the Jewish, Rwandan, Bosnian Genocide all mentioned and enshrined in formal UN documents, and the Armenian is not?

Oh really? What official UN document talk about a Bosnian Genocide, even Rwanda had its opposition and its applicability was hindered by countries such as the US. Only the Holocaust is in official documents, because the only extensive report and official document regarding Jurisprudences and examples of genocide was killed by Turkey since from the various references it contained the Armenian cases. Fad (ix) 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Errr... maybe because the UN didn't exist then? The UN was founded in '45, right after the shoah and before the rwandan and bosnian genocides. I think that answers your question. yandman 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The tribunal under the direct authority of the UN that called it a genocide (Srebrenica, to be precise, but there were references to greater scale Bosnia) is an integral part of the UN, therefore its documents are UN-approved documents. As for the UN 1945 thing.. There was the League of Nations I suppose. Rwandan genocide is mentioned in many documents relating to another tribunal under direct authority of the UN, as such it makes them UN-approved. And yandman, I wasn't able to follow your logic, if UN was founded after the Shoah, and as such retroactively recognised it, it could have done for the Armenian Genocide, right? In any case, I just think that you guys are completely overlooking the political aspects of this and the recognition. In any case, I don't want to get involved in this page. So long for a longwhile.. Baristarim 03:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bosnian Genocide has been recognized as such by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which operates under the auspicies of the UN. Similarly the Rwandan Genocide is referred to as such by the Int. Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which is now looking into an alleged French involvement in the genocide. The Armenian massacres have never been studied by an independent court, the closest they came to were the Malta tribunals, in which all of the defendants were acquitted. You will note also that the Malta tribunals have never used the word genocide, simply because that word was not invented yet. Of course a liberal use of that word is possible in the case of the Armenians to metaphorically mean a great massacre, but the legal connotations associated with the other genocides will be absent, at least until the claims are brought before an international court. --140.180.4.109 03:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one here is expert in international law. Neither am I. But one can use his logic before making statements. Fadix quotes "Article 34 of the Hague: First section (I). Only states may be parties in cases before the Court. He should have said "wait a second. there is something wrong here" because we know that at least one party in Rwandan case is not a goverment or country. and what is more if he were to think like this "Charges of genocide, parties concerned, German Jews (not a state) vs Germany" he would have seen the absurdity of the situation. So there is a mistake. I will explain it in a while...

You have as usual no clue of what are talking about, Rwanda tribunal was similar to what is happening now in Irak. The Nuremberg tribunal was not Hague, it is much like the promessed allied tribunal against Ottoman criminals discussed during the peace conference and never materalised. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unless neurobio could name a single individual who has ever been accused still alive". with this line he proposes that I am such an ignorant person(or rather mad or a pro deceiver) that I think or claim that a regular genocide trial will be held. Not at all... if he has read my nauseating comments carefully I keep on saying that if Armenians want compensation or to end the "Denial" the international court is there. this can be done in several ways.

Rwanda tribunal which was even not brought on International court had for months tried to settled and game played on an article of law to retroactivally apply an element (dating 1995), and this wasn't even gone to Hague. If you want to bring something valide, stop recycling something which was clarified to you in various occasions. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Diaspora Armenians can gather around a NGO(non governmental organization) and apply the court saying that "our parents were subjected to genocide by Ottoman government we want it to be accepted and we want compensation from the Turkish government"

Jurists have already tried this, there is no cases under Hague. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Armenia as a Country may apply the court and say "people of our race and parents of my current citizens were murdered by ottoman Turks we want recognition and compensation".

Not tired of repeating nonesense? Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These are two possibilities I can think of. There are two different organs of Hague that is relevant with such a matter: first ICC (international criminal court). This court deals with the current genocide trials and the application is governed by the "registrar". if you are some minority in a country subjected to a genocide you are not rejected cause you are not a country or what so ever. If what Fadix copy pasted was to be relevant with genocide trials it would have been a disaster and maybe me and Fadix would have started a campaign so that it shall be fixed. Thanks god no such problem is present. see: http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html

This court exist to trial war criminals. Are there any still alive in Turkey? Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The second court in Hague is PCA. It is a court that deals with all sorts of international disputes. for example It solved the problem of ownership of the southern islands of the Red Sea, the solution of which had been awaited since the end of the First World War. and if you check it basic documents: http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/BD/ . you see that almost anyone can apply it no need to be a State. Most probably this will be the court that will handle the case if Armenians were to apply for "recognition" and "compensation". And my friends it is there waiting for your application... If armenians want compensation, the only think that can enforce Turkey to do it is international law. Even if Turkey accepts genocide she will not pay money if not enforced. Simply because she has better things to spend it for.

There already are discussions regarding this. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then comes the tricky part. Will Turkey say I am not the Ottoman Empire and slip away. This may not be so easy due to two reasons. Althaugh Turkey always announces that she is a new country and this is validated in some international document she still paid the depts of Ottoman empire till the end of 1950 or 60. So if she can pay the depts or war compensations the court may say "ok this Armenian compensation can be regarded the same way pay it". this is a real possibility (of course if the court thinks a compensation is nessesary which means the approval of genocide). Also the court may say "Ottoman empire is guilty of genocide but Turkey is not its decendent" volia here comes your World wide recognition. finally if court says "Turkey can not be judged on this matter since she is a different country". The armenians find them selves almost where they started but with a new tool that they can utilize: "we are victims again! Turkey slipped away with no compensation at least give us our recognition". all these results are bad for Turkey.

Here comes the hateful generalization once more. Some never change. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

so if possibilities are these There is no reason for Armenians to wait. But don’t forget the 4th and most possible outcome. The verdict may say "there is no genocide". this will be a terrible day that Armenian fanatics/and "scholars" would simply don’t want to see in their worst nightmares.

That you think that afteral all the instances and the fact that most historians recognize it, a court will decide against the position of historians in a matter regarding history, than your situation is really worst than what I thought. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

and finally about political groups issue. If you still want to present All Armenians as unarmed poor civilians do so. But Thasnak, Hunchak, Armanekan and the high deeds of the Armenian Patriarchy in war time is in history books and documents. Maybe you can hide it here but not in a court. Besides I have shown here the examples where Armenian survivors them selves say that they had arms, they deserted and many of them fought the Turks joined Andranik and the Russians. And purely from an Armenian source. This is a long issue but lets see a real judge who participated in the Bosnia trials say about the political group definition.

I guess when a court found out about the defenses in the ghettos, or the Jewish conscription in the allied army, they'll start claiming there was no Holocaust. Good going, who would have though that your field is neutobiology.vFad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

„ When evidence points at the fact that a given group has engaged in political and armed activities, there is no way that a particular group cannot be considered as falling under the protective clauses of the Convention which deals only with genocide.”

“The term `political group' covers civilians along with the members of the group engaging in politics or waging an armed struggle. At first glance, this inevitably causes confusion. There are those who question why destruction of civilians affiliated with a group described as political should not be considered genocide. But this is a semantic problem that arises from the `definition'. A group comes to be called a `political group' when an attempt is made to destroy it with political aims. In other words, if there is a political struggle between two groups and if, in the course of that struggle, one of these groups commits against the other group acts such as murder, injury, massacre or deportation, the injured party comes to be called a political group. Killing civilians in the course of a political struggle continues to be a crime. But that crime is not genocide.”neurobio 03:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your analytical skills are laughable at best. Fad (ix) 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an intl lawyer, that's the reason why I don't want to get involved in this article :)) From a legal point of view, the Convention cannot be applied retroactively, since, as a principle, penal laws, ordinances etc cannot be applied retroactively. So the use of the word "genocide", from a legal POV, can be considered as an anachronism. However, I think the question that could/must/should/could be aboarded is this: "If the convention had been passed prior to 1915, would the events qualify as "genocide" under that convention?" At this point, that's the only consideration that we can have, because nobody who was around back then is alive now (no indvl punishments), and it is pretty clear that there won't be any reperations under any circumstance. So the question we have at the moment is simply symbolic, "would it be considered genocide if the convention was passed in 1910?". That's it. Stop wasting your time arguing this, since a recent initiative by Turkish Foreign Ministry tries to address this particular problem: It has proposed taking this to International arbitration with the premise that: "even though these events would not qualify, legally, as genocide under the actual convention (because of the non-retroactivity of penal statutes), what we want to know is if the events would have qualified as genocide had this convention been passed before 1915. So everybody get back to something more useful, what I just wrote is all that matters about the relation between the events of 1915 and the Convention passed after that date. This would not even qualify as a technicality: Any lawyer (not just intl ones) can tell you that penal statutes cannot be applied retroactively. The inititaive by the TR FM (if it sees the light of the day) will try to address that problem. Cheers! Baristarim 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Important note: International Arbitration Court is the only possible intl solution to this. Neither the ICC nor the Hague have the authority or the jurisdiction to try this case even if the whole world asked them to. The only way that could be done would be to amend the Genocide Convention to explicitly state that events that happened before the ratification of the convention can be considered under it, and as such allows retroactivity. Well, that's not going to happen, otherwise every major country in the world would be hit with lawsuits about events that happened 400 years ago. So ICC or the Hague are out, they will never get involved with this (except explicit UN mandate and proper amendment of the Convention). That's why the situation is at such a dead-end actually, sadly.. Baristarim 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many other procuderal problems too, but they would be too complicated to explain. There is no need to in any case :))Baristarim 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will answer you in a week. Fad (ix) 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good argument, but I wish you wouldn't tag your comments with "important note" - I think all of our comments are important, which is why we're making them. --AW 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems that we are misslead by the ICJ and Lahey words flying around in the press. So the only way is international arbitration court. But from what you wrote I understand that there will never be a compensation is that so?neurobio 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue of applicability of the term "genocide" in regards to the Armenian Genocide is one of historical accuracy in describing the event and has nothing directly to do with the legal standing

Several Turkish commenters to this talk page have (continually) raised the issue (objection) of the applicability of the term "genocide" in regards to the actions by the Ottoman Turkish government towards the Armenians beginning in 1915. They falsely claim that the only way in which this term can be used is if there is a case taken to International Court that would determine Ottoman Turkey's guilt. This is a strawman argument that has no bearing on the applicability of the term "genocide" in regards to the Armenian case. First, some here correctly contend that the United Nations provision against genocide (making it an international crime for a state to commit acts term "genocidal" against its own people) cannot be retroactively applied - and this is true. The UN Genocide convention was drafted in 1948 and enacted into (international) law in 1951 - and applies only to those nations which were signature to it - this includes the current Republic of Turkey - but not to the Ottoman Empire which no longer existed at this time. Furthermore there is no specific provision for retroactive enforecement. Thus any claim that the only way that the Armenian Genocide can be termed a genocide is through prosecution/convistion in an international court based upon the UN provisions is an utter strawman argument with no bearing on reality. However the ruling of the International Court of Transitional justice (which was commisioned by TARC at the behest of its Turkish representatives to determine just this issue of applicability) and the ruling of the UN Permenant Peoples Tribunal as well as a tremendous amount of international scholarship on this issue - (and not to mention the fact that Ralph Lemkin [inventor of the term "genocide"] specifically cited the Armenian case as a definitive example of what he meant by the term) - all of these factors more then prove - beyond any shadow of doubt - the applicability of the term "genococide" to the Armenian Genocide. End of argument. As for prosecuting this crime after the fact (an entirely different and unrelated issue to the applicability of the term/concept of genocide in regards to the Armenian Genocide) - there are a great number of obstacles (and we have presented and discussed all of these things ad nasuem in the talk pages yet certain vandals to this article - driven by racists and/or nationalist political considerations continue to harp about this entirely dead and non sequitor issue). First there is the issue of the Ottoman Empire no longer being in existance - just who would represent the defense? Many Turks love to throw out the issue of the Republic of Turkey being entirely different and distinct from the Ottoman Empire - so who would be the defendent(s) in this international court? (Luxumberg?) Likewise the agreaved Armenians - those who survived/are descended from those who survived and those who were slaughtered - who represents them? Armenia (not a nation until 1991 and not at all necissarily representing the Ottoman Armenians who were mass killed and deprived of home, livelyhood, culture and homeland in Anatolia). Is there some international recognition of class action suits? And again under what law(s)? Additionally there is no permenant international court set up to try criminals for such crimes. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is not a criminal court but more of a procedural court. It does not try any criminal cases. Likewise the vast majority of individual victims, potential defendents and eye-witnesses are long since dead. So this idea - this claim - that an international trial is needed is 100% a no go - it is not even an issue that is worth discussing (beyond what I have presented here). The Turks who continue to make such claims to the contrary are either demonstrating their ignorance or are deliberatly attempting to decieve and vandalise this article or both.--THOTH 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The following exerpt is from a legal brief prepared specifically concerning the applicability of the Genocide Convention to past crimes (highlights/bold are mine):

"B. Neither the text nor the travaux preparatoires of the Convention manifest an intention to apply its provisions retroactively.

Pursuant to Article 13, the Convention entered into force on January 12, 1951, the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification with the UN Secretary-General...

The text of those provisions of the Convention imposing obligations on States Parties to the Convention almost universally obligate the States Parties to take action in the future. For example, the States Parties "undertake" to prevent and punish the crime of genocide,22 "undertake to enact" the necessary legislation to give effect to the Convention's provisions, and agree that persons charged with genocide "shall be tried" by competent domestic or international tribunals.

The travaux preparatoires of the Convention support the contention that the negotiators understood that they were accepting prospective, not retrospective, obligations on behalf of the States they represented, including the "prevention of future crimes." One delegate described the purpose of the Convention as expressing "the peoples' desire to punish all those who, in the future, might be tempted to repeat the appalling crimes that had been committed."

C. Conclusion The Genocide Convention does not give rise to individual criminal or state responsibility for events which occurred during the early twentieth century or at any time prior to January 12, 1951. http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/news/ictj.pdf --THOTH 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The term genocide is strictly a legal term, that is rarely used by states and governments outside of its legal definition. How can you then ask the Turkish or any other government to recognize as genocide events, that legally are not? And how can the Turkish government be in denial of genocide, when legally what occurred was not and is still not considered a genocide? Your usage of the term genocide today stems more from your current wish to elevate your experience of 1915 to the same legal status enjoyed by the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides, rather than to describe the history of what occurred objectively. The Armenian Genocide cannot be a genocide, simply because at the time it happened it was not, and it was never called a genocide even once for the duration of the 30 years that immediately followed it. --140.180.4.109 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is not a "strictly legal" term, it just means "the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people" (Chambers). Nothing more, nothing less. So not using the term genocide means denying either the killings, the deliberate nature of the killings, or both. And as for your argument that calling it a genocide is anachronistic, I think this quote: "[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres" (1915, Joint statement by the Allies charging for the first time ever another government of committing "a crime against humanity") sums it up. yandman 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. The western imperialist governments, who at the time viewed the colonization and rape of Eastern civilization, as a service to humanity, have come with a pompous term of "crime against humanity". Big deal! These people viewed the very existence of Turks in Europe as crime against humanity and civilization, as there are countless quotes by Churchil and others attesting to their racist views on the Turks. Only arrogant westerners can come up with the idea that the Armenian massacres were the first crime against humanity. The fact still remains that nobody called it a genocide at that time, because it was not. It took a holocaust to invent the term genocide, the Armenian massacres were apparently not sufficient. --140.180.4.109 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough (claiming racsim) and wrong (your demonstated lack of knowledge of the history of charges against the Ottoman Empire and the coining of the term "genocide" by Lemkin (specifically regarding the Armenians and whose genesis was prior to the Holocaust). Please peruse discussions of this issue in archives of these talk pages and refrain from off-the-cuff comentary that has no basis in reality. --THOTH 17:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming racism? Is this to you not racist: I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. - Churchil 12th May 1919 in his attempts to justify the poisoning of the Moslem people of Kirkuk. Crimes against humanity you say? --140.180.4.109 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again this is a tangental strawman argument that is not central to the issue of the Armenian Genocide. This is not a discussion for attitudes of Europeans vesus non-Europeans per se. Of course - many from that time held views that we would regard today as being racist or otherwise unsavory towards others. (In fact many today esssentially still hold such views). We understand this - but none of it changes the facts. There is just too much coorborated evidence from a wide variety of sources for one to believe it is just a racist conspiracy against Turks. This is a non-issue. It is just another argument used by deniers to deflect attention from the facts of the matter and the documented history. --THOTH 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - "genocide" is a term with a definition (not just a legal status) - however it is clear (and it has been proven) that the Armenian Genocide meets all criteria for this definition. The definition includes what we might also term "Ethnic Cleansing" and is not limited to just killings. And in answer to poster 140.180.4.109 above - of course the Armenian Genocide was not called such for 30+ years following the event as the term was not coined until 30+ years after...come now...was there no such thing as AIDS - even though people were dying from it - even prior to the term "AIDs" having been invented? --THOTH 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The annihilation of the Native Americans by White Americans, the Cathars by the French, the Circassians by the Russians, and countless forgotten others also meet the criteria for the definition of genocide. What is so special about the Armenian case, that it above all, deserves to be called genocide, whereas others do not?--140.180.4.109 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object if those were called genocide. --AW 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Those events are not at issue here. However I would agree that all might be examples of genocide. Perhaps you should be contributing on talk pages for those articles. The Armenian case is clearly an example of genocide. In fact Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar Robert Melson further refines the definition to include examples of "Total domestic genocide" and genocides which meet the common criteria even though they might fall short of complete cultural and population denudement from national enclaves. He defines the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust as the two cases of "Total Domestic Genocide" for the 20th Century where the intentions and the results were complete soceital decimation for the targeted groups. So yes - at the very least the Armenian Genocide meets first order criteria for being labled as a genocide and meets even more stringent standards for being called such. As for these other "genocides" that you mention - I would say that on the surfce they are certainly candidates for being labled as such. The issue for Wikipedia is - what is the prevelant view of scholars in this regard? And of course these discusions belong on their respective articles and talk pages (or perhaps in a comparative genocide page). We are talking about the Armenian genocide her and you have already wasted enough of our time.--THOTH 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The following article provides an excellent overview of the historical and legal issues and ramifications of international law (and prosecutions) surounding and related to the case of the Armenian Genocide. The author makes a case that it might be possible (though extremely difficult) to prosecute the Armenian genocide in International court:

"Genocide is not an ordinary crime subject to periods of statutory limitation for purposes of prosecution. Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which was adopted by the General Assembly on 26 November 1968 and entered into force on 11 November 1970, no statute of limitations shall apply to genocide irrespective of the date of commission. The same principle of non-application of statutes of limitations to genocide was expressed by the General Assembly in its Resolution 2391 of 26 November 1968. The provisions of the Convention apply to representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission."

He does specifically mention however that Turkey has not signed this aspect of the provision. There is also still the issue of who would take who to court over this. Some other excellent points he makes in the article:

"Before the term "genocide" was coined by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin during the Second World War, the international community had spoken of massacres, mass killings or exterminations, which, if occurring in time of war would necessarily violate the provisions of The Hague Regulations on Land Warfare, and give rise to State responsibility under article 3 of the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907, including an obligation to grant compensation in cases of breach."

"Some war crimes trials against Turkish Unionists and top leaders of the Young Turk Ittihad Party responsible for the genocide against the Armenians did, however, take place before Turkish courts martial in Istanbul. A parliamentary Committee conducted investigations, and an Inquiry Commission was established on 23 November 1918, which delivered to the prosecution separate dossiers concerning 130 suspects. The Key indictment focused on the Cabinet Ministers and the top leaders of the ruling Ittihad party, including former Justice Minister Ibrahim, the War Minister Enver, and Interior Minister (later Grand Vizier) Talat. The indictment sought to establish that “the massacre and destruction of the Armenians were the result of decisions by the Central Committee of the Ittihad.” The prosecution relied solely on the Ottoman Penal Code, in particular articles 45 and 170. Most of the prosecution documents consisted of decoded telegrams sent to and from the Interior Minister, the Third and Fourth Army Commanders, the Deputy Commanders of the Fifth Army Corps and the Fifteenth Division from Ankara province. Documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate the charge that Ittihad party Chief Talat had given oral instructions to interpret the order for “deportation” as an order for “destruction.” On the basis of the documents, the Court martial established pre-meditation and intent. Two Turkish officers were convicted and executed, others were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Other members of the Young Turks were condemned to death in absentia. The trials were, however, discontinued after Kemal Ataturk came to power."

"No serious international lawyer would contend that the Turkey that signed the Treaty of Lausanne was a new State free of the legal obligations of the Ottoman empire. It is accepted international law that a revolution or any kind of overthrowing of a government does not result in the emergence of a new State devoid of inherited responsibilities."

"The systematic annihilation of Armenians in 1915-16 was recognized by Ottoman courts martial shortly after World War I, which sentenced some of the Turkish perpetrators to death. Official Turkish policy since the 1920s has simply denied the genocidal intent of these mass murders. No serious historian would today question the fact that there was a genocide against the Armenians in 1915-16. Some may argue that the number of victims exceeded one million and a half, while others might postulate the figure of one million, and others still might minimize it further. The facts, however, are known and have been known since 1915. Every history school book should reproduce the text of articles 142, 144, and 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres, which clearly show what the Allies believed and what the Sultan acknowledged in 1920. It is disgraceful that some politicians prefer to ignore these facts and pretend that the issue is open to serious historical doubt."

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/history/htooley/deZayasArmeniaFinal.pdf --THOTH 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good article thanks. So the guy is saying that it is possible to go to a court and Turkey cant slip away. Thats good. There is no surprize in the conclusions he arrived if you check the sources he used. I am just astonished to see that a Law Prof. can take a court which can give death senctence in absentia (without a defendant) at a face value. and I am confused about a thing. although Armenian sources say that the documents of the named court is no where to be found (claiming that Turks destroyed them) how do we know so much about it. most probably hearsay. we dont have any of the decoded telegrams he refers.

The articles he refer in Serves treaty basicly says that Ottomans accept to obey and acknowledge the authority of the courts that will judge on the responsible people of the acts of mass killings and give "back" the rights of the non muslim that has been converted or lost property. So this is the Malta story and we know the result. After 4 years all are released. this is a sad article since a law prof makes a case without reading a single proturk source. just like the court martial which gives death penalty without hearing the defendent.neurobio 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate getting into this, but since we are talking law:

ICC nor the Hague cannot judge this case. The argument that THOTH raised about Turkey being the successor state of the Ottoman Empire is not even the question any more: Turkey has always been the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and it is the only one in fact, other countries are deemed new countries because they are considered to have declared their independence. That is a fact and not even up for any kind of discussion legally. And as THOTH said, it is a succession, just like for individuals with inheritance: With inheritance comes debts and credits. Turkey, by its founding nature as the successor state of the OE, assumes all the debts, wealth, archives, citizens, responsibilities etc of OE. I find it funny that this question is still being discussed sometimes: Yessss, there was a revolution, yessss, it is a completely different regime, but the state (not the regime) is the same. Same examples are found from Soviet Union/Russia to nearly every country that underwent a revolution.

Of course, Turkey can go to the Hague and be a party to its cases, however:

Since the convention was passed after 1915, The Hague would not have the legal basis and corresponding statutues to judge to determine if this was genocide or not - it can judge for war crimes blah blah, but not for the fundamental question of the G-word. It is like trying someone for insider trading after the law on insider trading came about: that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been insider trading if the law had been passed prior to the act, but since such law didn't exist, that act couldn't be judged and considered as insider trading: stealing maybe. I am just talking legally here. The Hague can judge many countries for many things, but not for acts purpotrated to be genocide that have happened before the treaty. Unless, as I said before on my post above, explicit revision (and its ratification) of the convention to allow such retroactivity. That will never happen for myriad historical reasons, otherwise every big country would get hit with lawsuits.
ICC definitely doesn't have the jurisdiction nor the authority to judge this case. Are you kidding? Its charter doesn't even apply to American soldiers for their acts in 2006: for it to acquire the authority to judge this case it would take a major revision of the Genocide Convention and the ICC Charter. That's not going to happen either.
Therefore the only thing left is International Arbitration: However the problem with that is it is not technically a "court". I mean, it is and it is not. It doesn't have the charter of a UN court, in any case. It is a tribunal to settle disputes if both sides (only countries) are willing, but its judgments don't have the "force of the law" AND most importantly, in this case, it cannot decide on any reperations, that for two reasons by which Hague would have been able to had the genocide convention was signed before 1915:
- Genocide is a state crime, therefore individuals are not involved in any way: Armenia has to prove that it has suffered from these events
- Funny thing is, it didn't: Armenians killed (an overwhelming majority) were Ottoman citizens, and since Turkey is the successor state to OE, it is only Turkey that can claim reperations (from itself, I suppose) for the suffering that its citizens had gone through. That might seem funny, but it is the truth: Armenian state didn't exist back in 1915, therefore it cannot claim reperations, especially considering the fact that most survivors of Ottoman Armenians didn't even settle in Armenia, but rather in France etc. Armenia has no right, either under Hague, ICC, or Intl Arbitration to demand territorial compensation, and individual whose ancestors suffered during these events can claim compensation, but for that to happen the Genocide Convention would have to be amended to make it retroactive
- So, unless Turkey is going to go to Intl Arbitration to demand reperations from itself, or the Genocide Convention will be amended, there will never be reperations (some Turks who fear approaching this because of a fear of reperations could take a deep breath, however some nationalist Armenians who are pushing this because of that very reason can drink a nice glass of water).

Therefore, the only question that can be aboarded (which is a very legitimate one for historical and academic purposes) is to ask the International Arbitration "Court" to rule on if these events would be considered as a genocide had the Genocide Convention been passed before the events. Not so complicated really :)) Baristarim 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to reply to the article that THOTH produced:

The Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 doesn't apply: It was not a war (war= military confrontation between "two or more" states, events internal to a sovereign state are excluded from that treaty): Armenia didn't exist back in 1915, nor were the killed Armenian citizens: They were Ottoman citizens, therefore it is only Turkey, as the successor state of the OE, can demand reperations for the suffering its citizens endured (ironically or weirdly)
- The Genocide Convention was adopted to close this very loophole, just FYI background info on the Convention that we are talking about so often (there were other reasons too, but this was a very major one)
For the United Nations Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 1968, and Turkey's non-signature of it. That treaty establishes a "statute of limitations-free" world for war crimes committed 'after the signature of the treaty and/or after the signature of the relevant treaties (like the Genocide Cnvention). Turkey didn't have AG in mind when it didn't sign this treaty: it was thinking for the future. Statutue of limitations works forwards, retroactivity works backwards: they are not the same thing.

I am sorry to say that, that document was clearly a student's final (as the Net link so rightly suggested), someone who graduated from law with emphasis on intl law would not have given those two examples to prove Turkey's legal responsibility for these events, on a side note :)) The real truth is that, AG falls into a loophole as far as the application of the word "genocide" is concerned (i am of course talking legally, i don't want to get into a discussion about its possible wider application as a word). So we are stuck sadly, and will be stuck for a long time it seems... :)) Baristarim 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose individuals can go to the European Court of Human Rights for civil reperations (ECHR can only judge civilian cases in their entriety (with certain exceptions), for penal cases it can only rule passively (or negatively in legalese): it can only rule if the procudures followed during a penal case were correct and conform to Dec of HR). However the same problem there: Retroactivity. ECHR doesn't have the authority (it has the jurisdiction though) to rule on acts that happened before its Charter was adopted (again, if it were amended to allow for retroactivity, it would be a different matter, but that's not going to happen).Baristarim 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenia has to prove that it has suffered from these events, :( Have you even paid a least bit of attention on the Foreign Corroboration section of this article? of the numerous amount of scholars who agree that the Ottoman Empire guilt is beyond question. Which is, after all, what we should be speaking about on this page, not the legal issues.--MarshallBagramyan 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why I don't want to get involved in this page. Have you been paying attention what I just wrote? In good faith? I was saying "legally". Please don't attack people in that way, it would be better if you actually tried to read what I was trying to say, the question I was trying to cover was the legal issues surrounding these events being ruled on by a court. Don't adopt this confrontational attitude, that's all I got to say.. However, I beg to differ, legal issues can be mentioned since they also form an important aspect surrounding the subject matter as it stands today. On the other hand, I am not zealous enough about this article to try to make any editions. You should read what I wrote though, for general culture about international law :)) Baristarim 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Attack? You better reevaluate Wikipedia's policy on what an attack constitutes. Legal issues can be discussed but this is the talk page for the Armenian Genocide article and how it can be improved. What avenues of legal action the Armenians could take would sound relevant if the article actually focused on that topic. Since it doesn't, I would prefer it that we thus keep extraneous matters out of this page, a Wikipedia veteran will tell you no different.--MarshallBagramyan 06:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

MB - I agree that you weren't attacking per se above and that this whole legal issue is really a strawman that certain Turks raise because they don't want to confront the real issues and events (and because the facts fully support premeditation and guilt of the Ottoman CUP leadership and deep involvement of the Ottoman/Turkish nation and Turkish and Kurdish people in these crimes). However, I think that Baristarim has been providing useful insight and analysis here. I don't at all see his contribution in this case to be vandalism or an attempt to divert the discussion or disrupt the page. So I welcome his contributions in this regard to clarify the legal issues surrounding genocide prosecution (prior to enactment of the UN genocide convention in 1951). I think his contributions along with what I have posted above (and still believe to be good analysis as well - if perhaps still incomplete and perhaps faulty/debatable on some points) serve the basis for a good understanding of this issue and IMO put to rest these claims by certain Turks that the application of the term "genocide" cannot be used and that Armenian and scholarly claims and designation of these events as genocide are not legitimate unless their are international war crimes trials and convictions. To claim these things (that it requies such trials) is to fail to understand the difficulty/impossibility of the process under the (legal and practical) circumstances. Thus this claim on the part of certain Turks here and elsewhere is an entirely spurious one. The history is known, documented and proven. It is time to move on to other issues. There is much that can be presented in the article to give a better understanding of the circumstances of Armenians (and Turks [including refugess from outlying areas and conflicts] and Ottoman leadership and how the preceeeding and surounding events and environment and attitudes built up because of such led to genocide of the Armenians). These are what we need to focus on (as well as a better presentation of the basis for our knowledge and a more detailed accoutn of the progression and enactment of the genocide itself - such as we see in the Holocaust article). --THOTH 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing mediation

I am closing the pending mediation -- the requestor, Xargoth, does not appear to be interested in mediating at this time, and I have suggested some alternatives to mediation on his/her talk page. On the other hand, if Xargoth ot the other editors would find mediation helpful, I would be happy to reopen the mediation and try to help.

As a closing note, one issue did come up in the course of the mediation. It seems that all of the editors agree that the edits Xargoth wanted included are already discussed in the "Denial" section of the article, but that Neurobio finds the description of those views as "Denial" to have an NPOV connotation. (I assume Neurobio would prefer something like "Opposing academic views" as a preferable heading). Is there any room for compromise on the heading for the "Denial" section? Thanks, TheronJ 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Denial" isn't POV, it's the currently accepted term. See Genocide denial as well as the precedent, The_Holocaust#Holocaust_denial. yandman 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Denial of what? How can the Turkish government deny something which legally is not and has never been a Genocide? The Turkish governments refusal to accept the label genocide is firmly based on international law and on the absence of any legal basis to refer to the events of 1915 by that label as elaborated above by people familiar with international law.

The genocide proponents are using a smear campaign against those that disagree with them. To call denial the view of around 70 million Turks, millions of Azeri Turks and countless other people around the world, who do not agree with the one sided depiction of the events, a denial and to compare this with the views of few racist Nazi denialists, in my view is extremely POV in favor of the Genocide proponents. --128.112.37.9 18:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-argument..."smear campaign" just doesn't cut it. As we have shown time and time again the Armenian genocide is overwhelmingly accepted as such by scholars, academics, historians and international bodies - and so on and so forth. Also accepted is that the Turkish Government is leading nad has been funding an international campaign of Genocide DENIAL - and those such as you are deniers pure and simple. Your repeated posts to this talk page continue to confirm that you hold a biased political view and have no actual facts or position to back up such other then strawman irrelevant arguments. How can you even claim that 70 million Turks and Azeri Turks hold your view or if they are even aware of the issues and if so what basis do they have to form an opinion other then the slanted and false history that is presented them by the Turkish government and the media outlets it controls and restricts. It has already been more then established that the Armenian genocide is fact - it is no more a POV then acceptance of the Holocaust or any other widely known/understood historic event. Those who believe otherwise are deniers and nothing more. This does not say that there is no room for discussion and presentation of events and circumstance - but to deny the Armenian Genocide is clearly a minority view that is unsupported by the historical record. --THOTH 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor, a fact that might help you to accept Wikipedia is that we don't say what is true, we say what is verifiable, from reliable secondary sources. So as long as the overwhelming consensus among historians is that it was a genocide, we say it was a genocide. You can believe whatever you want, but we have to respect the policy of not giving "undue weight" to those who go against consensus. Why do you claim that denial of the shoah is racist and not that of the armenian genocide? And why do you assume that all your compatriots have the same views as you? One of them has just won the Nobel prize, and I'm sure that there are others (Even on Wikipedia). yandman 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk is a Turkish patriot and he has never ever mentioned an "Armenian Genocide" (as you had erroneously alleged in the article with the intention to mislead). He simply stated that around a million Armenians have died on these lands, with which I agree. But he did not call that a genocide. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the people of Turkey and Azerbaijan, including Orhan Pamuk and the Armenian patriarch in Constantinople, do not view the events of 1915 as an act of Genocide solely against Armenians - because it was far more complex than that - it was a war in which 600 thousand Kurds and Turks were killed as well as confirmed by Ottoman archives. You try very to hide the fact that Armenians and Russians killed moslems concurrently with the Armenian deaths by distorting the historical reality of what happened, slandering anybody who does not agree with your one sided views as denialist, or simply dismissing them as agents of the Turkish government. --128.112.140.30 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice little article that contains a brief interview with Pamuk where he addresses use of the term "genocide". One must realize the extreme political (and legal) sensitivity of use of this word by a Turkish citizen - particularly in Turkey itself - so it is clear that Pamuk treads cautiosly - and for good reason. It is also clear who he sides with and where his views lay. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1598633,00.html --THOTH 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents, as a basically disinterested party, is:

The term "Denial" is technically correct. It's diametrically opposed to "Recognition," and it seems to describe what the various scholars cited are doing. (Arguably "Denial and/or qualification" might be slightly more accurate, but maybe not).
In this context, anonymous editor's arguments about whether the Armenian deaths constitute a "Genocide" probably don't do much to shift the issue. Literally, 128 is "denying" the existence of a genocide, and the article text makes clear that's what dissenters like Lewis also deny.
With that said, there are other words that would describe the dissenters factually as well as "Denial," but that wouldn't carry the subtext or connotation that Armenian Genocide denial is similar to Holocaust Denial. ("Dissent" would definitely be POV the other way, but something like "Disagreement" might fall somewhere in between). I suspect that connotation is what makes some people prefer the heading and some people not, but if there isn't a willingness to compromise, then mediation probably won't get you there.
One other way to resolve it would be to do a few Lexis-Nexis and journal searches. Leave out the writers with an interest in one side or the other. Given that, do the majority of non-interested parties refer to the people who dispute the characterization of the Armenian deaths as a "Genocide" as "deniers" "dissenters" or something else?

Thanks, TheronJ 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The heading of the "Denial" section used to be "Opposition" for more than a year. Then it was changed without any discussion here. Seems that "Opposition" may be a more neutral heading than "Denial" is. Shelby28 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

About life under ottoman rules

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

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

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