Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

POV

I don't see why we need to have the POV tag here. The article doesn't assert the views, all the disputed parts are labeled as "alleged," the article talks both about the Turkish and mainstream point of views--I suggest the POV be removed. If someone objects, they will need to make a good case.--TigranTheGreat 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say what Turks allege Armenians did? We should then also put the other side of the story and then we can remove the POV.

Aren't all of the Armenian contributions to Ottoman civilization covered in the Ottoman Empire entires? (are these really just alleged contributions?) If not perhaps these need to be modified to properly reflect Armenian contributions first before we move on to just why Armenians became the victims of the dominant Ottoman Turkish elements of the society. Oh and BTW - only Turks (perhaps aided by some Kurds and Circassians and some Balkan and other various Turkics - commited Genocide [against Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians])...--THOTH 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic and after reading the article, I think the NPOV tag needs to go. Of course many people of Turkish origin think this whole topic is not NPOV but the way the article is written is neutral. You don't need every single Turkish allegation and rationalization because they are addressed generally. Take the tag off please. Pschemp | Talk 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Do the Nazis get to push their POV about the Final Solution, about how the Jews "violently resisted the peaceful breakup of the ghetos", "slipped intelligence to the Allies", "manipulated the war through their evil global conspiracy", etc? I think we should have a formal vote if Fadix or an admin won't do the job. John Smith's 08:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't take the responsability to remove it. This should be decided by the community by a vote. Fad (ix) 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with users Pschemp and John Smith above - article is most politically correct as it stands (too much so IMO) - and certainly should not have a POV lable on it any more then the Holocaust article should. Outside of (so-called) scholars who explicitly are funded by Turkey or who have very obvious ties to Turkey there are very few - if any - scholars who truly deny the Armenian Genocide and would dispute any facts or positions contained in this article. It is most shameful that some Turks are so fanatically blindly nationalistic that they cannot accept the facts in this case even though the world and scholars are pretty convinced concerning what occured. It is also most sad that we are held hostage by this denial. I argue that this article needs to be entirely rewritten and reorganized to more resemble that of the Holocaust article. It requires more background explanation and discussion however as their is less common familiarity with the events and circumstances of the Armenian Genocide and of the Armenian experience in the ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide then there is of the Jewish experience in Germany prior to WWII and the events leading to and comprising the Jewish (and other peoples) Holocaust enacted by the Nazi Germans in WWII. Likewise I am in favor of covering a variety of events and circumstances concerning conditions and events affecting the Ottoman Empire prior to the leading up to the Armenian Genocide which I feel are important for a proper understanding and context of this event. --THOTH 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have created a poll, so please vote at the bottom. John Smith's 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion as a student of history at Manhattan College, Dr. Balakian spoke at my school about it and this entry is a far more neutral article than what he spoke about during the lecture. so As a Turkish student none the less of History the NPOV tag should be taken off. There is no bias both sides are given, its Dr. Balakian you need to talk to the guy that wrote the Burning Tigris or something like that ~Pinar

Hats on the photo

By the way, has anyone ever looked on the first photo at the article page?Hahah!If you look, you will see the Russian hats on the heads of Ottoman officers.

Look carefully.Have Ottomans ever used the hats like those?

Strange, apparently this website [1] about the Ottoman Empire does show pictures of those hats. Conspiracy perhaps??--MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am suspicious of that picture myself, I have removed it a while back I think, but it was reintroduced. The victims were probably either Russian Armenians soldiers serving for the Tsar or Russian soldiers, who had their uniforms taken off and their victors dressing of those uniforms as it was coutume there. I may be mistaken, but still I believe there are better references pictures to have this one included, I don't believe this picture represent victims of the genocide. Fad (ix) 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again for this article, i can just LAUGH. Please make some DEEP research and after that try to write a NEUTRAL article, i say it to main articles writer.

Reşit, from Turkey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.56.38 (talk • contribs) .

You guys are bunch of idiots. The officers are Russians that discovered the bodies and apparently took pictures. No turk would like to take a picture and document the fact.

HAHA...........

NPOV tag Vote

Ok, this is a simple vote that should last no longer than seven days. A simple majority should suffice. No anon-IPs please. The question is:

"SHOULD WE REMOVE THE NPOV TAG FROM THE ARTICLE?"

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support. I believe that this article does not simply push one side of the argument and could actually stand to be more critical. John Smith's 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support.--MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I retract from voting due to my intense participation on this article and my involvement. Just one comment, those who will vote should do it not based on what they believe to be true, but rather if they think that this article is clearly POV. There are some POV issues, but I believe they are minor, people should vote if some minor issues are serious enough to keep the POV tag or not. Fad (ix) 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. As my comments above. I am not involved in this article in any other way, so I feel like a pretty neutral source. Pschemp | Talk 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support I think that the article is more or less objective, and there is no need for disputes. Diegon

Support. The article presents both sides of the story, and complies with both the WP:NPOV and Undue Weight policies, the later stating that when a position is held by a minority, it has to get a proportional focus in the article. --TigranTheGreat 19:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support As it stands now, this article seems very NPOV, compare it to similar articles if you want to see what I mean. The article in general has been stable for quite a while now as well.--Eupator 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. --RaffiKojian 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support the Armenian genocide is solidly established and the objections of many Turks are clearly represented in the article. Some injustice to the Turkish POV is done by not recognizing that Turkey did not always deny the genocide, however the warning represents quite the opposite view. Progress has been made on the late recognition of the genocide by Turks. If asked, I am willing to elaborate on the early Turkish views of the Armenian genocide, with references. Overall the article is NPOV. gidonb 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

++VOTING CLOSED++ There has not been one dissenting voice on the vote after several days, so I am removing the tag as of now. John Smith's 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me this page is completely dominated by those who have a stake in this matter, and naturally this sort of vote will garner such a result. In order to have dissenting voices, dissenting parties would need to dedicate themselves as eagerly as those for whom this matter means so much. The fact that this page is stable points not to the truthfulness of many of the claims, but to the commitment of those who have made this page their calling; this article is not, in any shape or form, "objective," and does not at all "present both sides of the story." Blissmiss 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are a brand new account that has done nothing but edit this page and the article and thus are most likely a SOCK and have no say on wikipedia. psch e mp | talk 07:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am new. Hello, how are you? I believe you also were new at one time, were you not? I have read the page of the founder, and he encourages anyone to edit articles, regardless of seniority. That is the basis of Wikipedia. I have not edited this page, by the way; I have merely added my voice. You have edited my above contribution, however, and that is not polite. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Blissmiss 08:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Screaming in bold is not polite, fixing format issues is expected on WP and considered polite. Making unfounded accusations of bias is impolite also. When you add anything to a page you make an edit, thus above this is your edit to this page. I think you misunderstand the meaning of edit as used here. As of this point, ALL of your edits are to this article and its talk page and it appears you created this account purely for inserting accusations of bias into this topic. Of course you are allowed to do so, but anyone is also allowed to completely disregard your opinions. I will do what it takes to maintain the format of this page in a readable manner and will not refrain from doing so for any reason. psch e mp | talk 08:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what edit means; I have noticed the word "edit," to be clicked on to make a change. I was making the distinction of adding a fresh entry on this talk page, which is technically not an "edit" to my mind, versus making changes in already existing material.

We have a good difference in opinion. Anyone who has the capability of looking at this topic in an impartial manner knows what I am referring to; examples abound from some of the talk pages that I have read here. Many of the sources in this article are not of the variety a genuine historian would accept. (Such as undocumented photographs, fixed trials conducted under enemy occupation, and one professor of notoriety of whom even Hilmar Kaiser has concluded that "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value.") As Guenter Lewy has written recently, "a large number of Western students of Ottoman history reject the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey. This list includes distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, most Armenians and their supporters among so-called genocide scholars assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is an incontrovertible historical fact."

That is exactly the case here. An exclusive club has been formed. Anyone who arrives with a different perspective is immediately attacked, as you have demonstrated, "with superb arrogance." You have stated clearly that someone as myself should "have no say on wikipedia," as if you have the right to be the judge and jury.

Writing in capitals is impolite; the occasional bold imprinting to distinguish a message from what is obviously the run of an exclusive club is very much justified. But I realize if I exercise my right, two minutes later, someone with a highly unfriendly attitude and single-minded determination will impose her dictatorship. In order to persist, one must possess the time and will. Those of us who are not as emotionally invested cannot last very long. This is exactly why the above "vote" is invalid, when only like-minded people are present to vote. Blissmiss 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Although particpants seem to be in many cases from Armenian and Turkish backgrounds, I disagree that this discussion is controlled by an exclusive club of insiders. I am new to this discussion, have a somewhat different take on the genocide than the participating groups and have so far received only positive feedback. I do believe that in the dynamics between the groups certain aspects are apt to be overlooked. gidonb 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I must be Armenian because I believe this happened. Of course. There are those out there that deny the holocaust too, but that doesn't mean they need to be exhasutively included or discussed on the holocaust page. If you think those experts are so worthy, then go write a separate page about their views on the "non-existing genocide". This page is not the place for it. The article makes it very clear that some people disagree with calling it a geneocide, no more is needed here. It is the nature of political issues that someone always disagrees. We've heard that here before, nothing you say is new. Again, if you believe that strongly about it, go write your own article. You are starting to sound like a sockpuppet of certain anon contributors below who are upset because they didn't get their way either. psch e mp | talk 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for intimating that blissmiss was a sock, as that has been shown not to be. My other opinions stand. psch e mp | talk 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, your sentence above does not fit the real facts on the ground. The genocide is not accpeted and characterized as a big lie in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Tataristan, and almost all muslim countries. There was one who said that Leabon pseudo recognized the alleged genocide, there is no credible source to approve that. No official gov't wweb site of Lebanon talks about the alleged and lie armenian genocide. As to other countries except 15 mostly christian countries no country has recognized the genocide. Even the US characterizes it as a massacare. Your armenian love or fundamentalism has closed your eyes to reality and real facts. Try to be more correct. --71.195.182.195 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The countries you listed are hardly up-standing members of the international community, especially as many of them have committed State-sponsored violence against their citizens, while denying it. Indeed a lot of these countries seem to have some sort of "gentleman's agreement" where they cover up for each other in the international community whenever one does something wrong. And Muslim countries are obviously going to take the side of other Muslims. When you have countries like France, Canada or Scandavian nations saying it's a lie then there might be some credance to it. But all you've done is mention places that have a questionable human rights record themselves. Not a good idea. John Smith's 12:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of these countries have themselves massacred segments of their population or committed genocide. Armenian love and fundamentalism do not describe me, politically I am closer to Turkey if already. Genocide deniers will say anything to justify their extreme minority positions. gidonb 13:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, yes it does and it does well. The countries that recognize the alleged and lie based armenian genocide are the biggest genocide doers and now they with zealot woudl like to balckmail the Turkey and label it as one of them as well. Becasue pseudo for them it would reavealing that they weren't alone in the world. The biggest genociders are France, Germany, Italy, and UK. Don't forget that 3 million died with direct inaction of the British in Bengal in 1940s. The germans killed 6 or more Jewish. I especially see the activeness of the German as they did such a wrong thing and now try to label Turkey as genocider, as this will give them the psychological releif that they are not so horrible. You just might be a German or European who have been the biggest and largest genociders in the world and nothing will clean this.

So as we see the countries that recognize the alleged armenian genocide and armenian lies are those countries which have done the biggest genocides in the world. See who are recognizing the alleged armenian genocide. --71.195.182.230 17:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, funny you would mention Germany. Hitler in his final solution was inspired by the Armenian Genocide. He refered to it personally and specifically. He also had the ashes of the architect of the Armenian Genocide sent to Turkey, where this man was added to the Mauseleum of the Fallen Heroes and lies until today. All this is on record. gidonb 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, the armenian loved and faked words of Hitler is nothing more than the myth as the armenian genocide allegations. You know that better than me. Also would like to note that UK hasn't recognized the alleged armenian genocide. In other countries they were done mostly bby some group of parlamentarians, who are most likely anti muslim, anti Turk and or christian fundamentalists. So as yo u see the armenians millions are going to toilet as the flush of water. I woudl suggest those armenian diaspora people to spend this money for armenians who are dieing in armenia from poverty. It would be interesting for you to know that half of the armenian population has already left armenia. So funny that most of armenians as you gidonband and lovers of armenians for this or another reason always try to relate the armenian genocide to notorious people in the world therefore trying to justify their position. So far these are Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. God known who will be tomorrow. May be the Pope Rome himlself. Haaaaaaaaaaaaa:)))))Ramil --71.195.182.195 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't know why Armenians want to hide that one of the biggest genociders in the world was Armenian. Lavrenty Beriya was an armenian and the right hand of Stalin. Indeed the entire massacre of intellectuals and anti-soviet people had been directly managed by Lavrenty Beriya, not by Stalin. He has killed by some estimations 30 million people in the entire former Soviet Union. Do you the see the parallel between the tendency of Lavrenty Beriya to commit genocide, and armenian in Turkey in 1915 who killed half a million Kurds and some Turks.

Why you don't tell the truth? WHy you don't tell that one the biggest genocider in the world was Armeninan, Lavrenty Beriya. His genocide may be exceeds the genocide committed by Hitler. --71.195.182.195 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Beriya was not Armenian, he was a Georgian Jew but the only person who was in the high ranks of the Communist Party at that time who was Armenian was Artem Mikoyan and he aided in policy making, not deporting and starving peoples. Where in the world did you get this erroneous info anon?--MarshallBagramyan 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen one credible source on the Jewishness of Beria. Where did you read that he was of any Jewish decent? According to most sources he was the son of Mingrelian peasants from the Abkhazian region of Georgia. The sources that claim he was Jewish seem to be from a very specific kind. Striking enough some postings on anti-Semitic forums also deny that he was Jewish. Of course, since Beria did not have many papers and the few he had were partly forged, much can be claimed about him. Beria was one of the major criminals behind the "Great Purge" (greatest after Stalin) and responsible for the death of many Jews. By the way, a well known hoax claims that Stalin himself was Jewish. Truth is that Stalin studied to be a priest at a seminary before he turned to communism. gidonb 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I lived in the Soviet Union and books like those were viewed unfavorably by the USSR government and hence, were read in secret. It was an omnipresent view held by the people in the USSR. The books didn't have any hint of anti-semitism, they simply stated that Beria was of Jewish descent and undeniably, a corrupt and ruthless "politician" in the Stalin's government, the one who did his dirty work. And Stalin for a fact, was definitely not Jewish. --MarshallBagramyan 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true but some Soviet books were against Beria for political reasons or rehashed information. To the best of my knowledge it has not been included in a credible source. Of course I would be interested to know if such a source existed. It is not in the very detailed Lavrenty Beria article and would be if there was something to it. It also is not proven he was not a Jew. In any case Beria did not study to be a priest. gidonb 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I dont think it is neutral to place "Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide" wherever an opposing view is expressed. You are in effect telling the reader "this is denial". --A.Garnet 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Denial" doesn't mean what you are denying is true. It means denial of a view. The focus in this case is Armenia Genocide. Someone who says that it didn't happen by definition denies it. --TigranTheGreat 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Denial is a loaded word - it is usually associated with refusing to accept something which is true, it gives the article a slanted tone, that one view can be dismissed as denial. If there are no objections, I will remove both the links. --A.Garnet 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, quit removing, that is what you're good at. You have already removed something on the bases that it does not fit in the article and deleted an entire section. There will already by an entire article regarding Denial of the Armenian genocide, because the position of denial of the genocide exist and cover more than half of the works published about the topic. You will hardly find any work covering the topic which does not at least have one chapter about what is termed denial. It is the least one could do to have at least a little link to another article with that name, and the fact that it is largelly underused in the article is clearly misleading because if we were to give the space on denial that is covered in the academia we would have to give half of the space of the current article. Fad (ix) 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I took the article off my watchlist, it seems it is ok for someone to go and add the denial link without discussion, but as soon as I introduce it into discussion, I get a personal retort off you. I have made it clear before, that this article does not present the Turkish POV in a sympathetic tone as Wikipedia requires, but instead slams it at every given opportunity. On top of this, we are now placing a link called denial wherever an opposing view is expressed. This is just another instance of the discreet presupposition running throughout this article that the Turkish view is wrong. At least we have moved on from when the Turkish government position was simply entitled denial! (which if i remember you once again opposed). --A.Garnet 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What? What? What? Look dude, you have deleted an entire section about the denial while there was a clear opposition for you to not do it, and I accepted it to not start out a conflict. You have deleted sentences because you considered them showing the Turkish government in bad light and when I have reintroduced it you have deleted it as per talk page, when I have justified its inclusion and in the last part of the discussion you haven't even answered me. I repeat, what is termed as denial, should take half of the space of the article because half of the time or even more, when the Armenian genocide is reffered to is to point of its denial. This is what it is called, I already used Universalis which is owned in part by Britannica, which call it as such. In fact, the only encyclopedia that I know of that does not do this is Britannica which is the record holder on the numbers of times that it changed its entry about the Armenian genocide and it was always after intense Turkish pressures. Britannica has even mistakes in its statistic table about the entry which were directly pasted from the Turkish foreign ministry. They were even forced to remove their maps of historic Armenia which was a reprint of National Geographic map, and Tabib whom is a member here in Wikipedia was one of those who wrote for the removal.

The Turkish government position already states "Those who support the genocide theses state that Turkey is denying its past and accuse it of suppressing international attempts to recognize a genocide". But for some this does not dismiss the Turkish view enough, there has to be links placed at every mention of an opposing view that indicate Turkey is in denial. This is what I am opposed to. --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that we were condemned for a crime you did not commit, would your refusal to accept it be termed denial. I don't see how denial is to be changed, it only say that the Turkish government reject the term. [2]

Also, as I said, this term is generally attached to the Turkish government position, it is a notable term, in fact it is more associated to the Armenian genocide than any other cases, including the holocaust. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are the one refusing the include the whole Turkish version, because when I do it, you claim it does show the Turkish position as bad light. But it is TRUE that Halacoglu, Ataov all those working in the Turkish historical society which is owned by the National Assembly(AKA government) claims that it was actually the Armenians whom commited genocide against the Turks and that even figures of over a million killed by Armenians were presented. I am ready to include those, but you will refuse, actually the Turkish version you want to be included is YOUR Turkish version not those published. Even thought it is supported by a good portion of the Turkish population, we need publications for it to be included, but the only publications that one could find are those by Halacoglu, Ataov or those published by the Institute of Armenian studies founded by the Turkish government aimed specifically to deny the Armenian genocide. Those publications are the official versions, the official version is Halacoglu's 56 thousand Armenians perished and that Armenians killed a half a million Turks, but when I have included those you wanted it to get deleted. Is it my fault that the governments version destroy its own credibility? The same government that accused nearly every Western country of genocide? But of course you also opposed to the inclusion of this, as well as your probably inclusion of the claim from the Turkish government that the Armenian genocide is an international lie and that Western democracies position is controled by the Diaspora.

My source for the Turkish governments position was taken from their embassy website. It made no mention of 56,000 Armenians dying, therfore I had no way of knowing the signficance of the Halacoglu claims on the Turkish governments position, I removed it because it was clearly no longer the position of the Turkish government. Now, as for you accusation about Turkey accusing other countries of genocide, I had the support of both El C and Tony Sidaway in removing that sentence. It was an attempt by you to misprepresent the words of individuals as part of a greater hyprocrisy by the Turkish government. And I noticed that you had no problem reintroducing it recently without discussion. --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And my source from the Turkish government position was taken from the books published by the Turkish governments personals which are the bases of what there is in the ministry website. Halacoglu is the president of the Turkiish historical foundation AKA society, which was founded since under the Kemalistic regime and is attached to the General assembly, he is hired and pied by the government and right now is the minister of the Armenian genocide 'allegations.' If you want to know his position and his claims of Armenian casulties or that you want a reference from his books, I will gladly footnote his claims, I was going to do that already. As for your claim that you got the support of Tony and El C, you are misinterpreting their acts the same way that you have tried to assassinate my character by claiming that I was already banned by an Administrator, when you knew that it was a mistake because my ban was lifted soon after I was banned. El C revert to vandalism to your own version is not a support, you have mislead in your edit as if there was an agreement when there was none. Tony made a remark but has not followed when I have answered. As I already said, the Turkish government had accused pratically every Western nations of genocide as an answer, and I don't even include what happened here with the Israeli minister of education who left his job after he had attempted to include the Armenian genocide alongside with the Holocaust in school curriculums. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who continually makes remarks on mine and other peoples character, and you accuse me of character assasination?! Your first line in this disucssion was "quit removing, that is what you're good at", you introduce your arguments by telling other users that I have history of removing material, you call my discussion with you Bullshit, you raise your voice as to be patrionising, and now you accuse me of deceiving people over El_C's support. For your information, I was not going off his revert, but off his reply (towards bottom) on his discussion page. If I mistakenly took that as support, then I apologise to El_C. With regards to your block, it came as no surprise to me after witnessing how uncivil you can be (which I actually warned you about), that you judged it as a mistake seems to be your interpretation, If i'm not mistaken the admin unblocked you on good faith. --A.Garnet 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Garnet, my accusation about you removing materials is founded and you know it, not only on this thread but elsewhere, including Ataturks entry, which the critics have simply been removed, while your accusation against me was simply untrue and you knew it. You raised the issue of my blocking when you knew that the decision was reverted soon after it was implemented, but since you raise it again and still maintain that, know that the one who blocked me apologized in private and while I promessed to not talk about that, that you still don't drop that I am forced to bring that. From all the arbitrators, administrators involved in that cases only you claim I was uncivil, only you witnessed that, I guess you see what you want to see. Also, you recieved a warning yourself by an administrator and I have never fallen that low to discredit you. This was the caracter assassination I was talking about, you pointed that to picture me as someone who could not behave and was blocked therefor. As for everytime I have used the term BS they fitted there, you were deleting sentences what was I to do of that? Comming to El_C, I don't think it is a bright thing to interpret somemones remark, when your interpretion of it in light of my reply which BTW you haven't answered to, doesn't make much sense. Prime ministers, presidents etc. are very relevent more so when there is no written on stone Turkish government position and that from the same logic I could delete all that section from the same basis. When I brought that you have skipped replying to that, and that accusing various countries of genocide is generalised. Fad (ix) 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is not founded, and i am getting fed up of having my character attacked each and every time I come into contact with you. I didn't bring up your ban, your brought up your ban to again accuse me of being underhanded. The reason i ignore most of your ranting is evident from this discussion, look at the size of it! I have no interest in taking part in 1mb of discussion with you every time I want to edit an article. You even make no hint of apology in calling other peoples contribution bullshit, but instead think you are fully justified! You accuse me of basing El_C support on a revert, I show you otherwise, and you give me some nonsensical reply to avoid losing face. Now show me this warning i received from an administrator which you have been so modest as to mention, other than a 3RR I received in my early days I dont know what your on about. --A.Garnet 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The above message of yours is the kind of I recieved everytime I requested explainations for your deletions. And yes, BS was a term I used, and I was harsh pratically in every interactions we had, but this isen't surprising, since our discussions generally revolved around your deletions when you were adviced not to delete, and I wasn't the only one being harsh with you there when you were deleting materials..., more particularly in other articles.

Also, I don't remember myself generally calling other peoples contribution bullshit, in fact I don't even remember using this term but rather BS and it was directed at your justification for deletions in a talk page, therefor it could not be about your contributions in articles.

Comming to your claim that I was trying to save my face. I don't see how, what do you want me to do, appologize for my mistake over your comment on El_C answer? Fine I appologize, on the other hand, I don't see how me pointing to the fact that your argument doesn't support what you claim or rather suggest it support is to save my face.

And lastly, me reffering to your warning was not to discredit you, unlike what you did in my cases, I just pointed that I will never fall that low and reffer to your warning on the middle of a discussion, please don't put words in my mouth to then answer them. This is my last reply regarding this subject, since it turned out to be unconnected with the current article. Fad (ix) 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to say like the official publications such as the classical book Le peuple arménien et les tentatives de rendre en servitude le peuple turc by Inayetullah Cemal Özkaya and Gurun who attempt to even question the existance of the Armenians as a people from the logic: "If there is no Armenians, how could an Armenian genocide exist?"

Another thing is that the Turkish government position there, is your position since you control that section and consider what is the Turkish government position. In short, you have already removed an entire section regarding the genocide, and like it or not the term denial is here to stay when the term is used in the very large majority of the works each time the question of the Armenian genocide is mentioned and one of the reasons why I have a problem to remove the neutral tag is because without any inclusion of the denial this article is misleading and does not cover it as it is in reality.

I dont 'control' that section. I only take an interest in it because it is only place in the article which represents the Turkish view. If I'm not mistaken there were previously about 3 lines in the entire article which treated the Turkish view and you deemed this as incorporating the Turkish view and therefore making the need for a separate section redundant. And I find it surprising that your idea of making the article more neutral is to emphasise the Turkish view as denial even more. And heres me thinking you were going include the non-Turkish academics who dont support the genocide thesis (which you said you were going to do no?). --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish view is recorded only on publications not on what you believe as a Turk. I am ready to include Gurun, Ataov, Halacoglu etc. who actually represent the official version, and it was you who named that section to represent the Turkish government view, which is not blindly to be equated with the general Turkish population, when the last poll in Turkey about Armenians showed that the general population has no clear idea of who exactly are Armenians and how big is Armenia. As for denial,I have opposed many Armenians to introduce their POV, but I will oppose to delete the term denial, because this is what is the Turkish government position, and had the genocide not happened it would still be termed as denial, because the Turkish government refuse the official position which is the thesis that a genocide did happen. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And since we are at it about things to remove, I see that no one had any problems beside me with the inclusion of websites such as armenianreality.com or armenian-genocide-lie.com when neither the authors are unknown(under proxy), nor it is an official position nor from an organization, and above everything had I included a site such as Turkishlies.com or Turkishreality.com you would have been the first one to jump on it to remove it, but lucky you I would have supported you if such a thing was to happen and that I would have removed it myself. By Nooo!!! You will always try removing sentences that are official positions and even others which you do not deny the existance(like turkish officials accusing other nations of genocide they were even to pass a resolution accusing Armenia of genocide in Xojali). Fad (ix) 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means remove those websites, you obviously have a poor judgement of me if you believe I have the intention of propogandising articles. I only believe in the fair representation of views, and when i say fair I dont mean equal as some people have suggested below, I mean fair as in not being dismissive. It is now obvious that the chances of me editing this article without getting an instant revert are next to zero, not because of my edits, but because of the strong prejudice against any Turk editing this article.

You are misinterpreting what I've said, my point is that you leave obvious mistakes and do nothing about, but will oppose any changes on the Turkish government section. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also this is to User:TigranTheGreat, please dont manipulate the vote by informing your buddies, why dont you message some Turkish people as well? --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't have to. Informing is a necessary part of making informed decisions and has absolutely nothing to do with manipulation. None of the persons I have informed are my buddies, in fact most are neutral administrators. My act of informing actually resulted in one of them getting involved to make the article more neutral, so I say it had positive results for everyone. --TigranTheGreat 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, I believe the Undue Weight policy requires to represent views not in proportion to how widely they are covered, but how widely they are *held* (actually I learned this from your discussions on other talk pages). "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. ...Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". [3] The denialist position is a minority--the vast majority of scholars outside Turkey support the Genocide (save for some historians up-for-purchase), and the general public knowledgable with the events agrees that it was a Genocide:

Most scholars outside Turkey agree that the killings are among the first 20th-century instances of "genocide," (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4024.html)

The Armenian genocide is not the first 20th-century genocide, Herreros were eradicated by the Germans before that. The Armenian genocide on the other hand is the first modern genocide, which is different. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am almost sure that you noticed it, but I decided to mention it anyway. The article says "amont the first." As such, it is accurate. By the way, many scholars, perhaps justifyably, regard Abdul Hamid's massacre of 300,000 Armenians in 1890's as part of a 20 year long genocide campaign (1894-1923) in 4 stages: 1890's, 1909 (Adana, 30,000 victis), 1914-18 (1.5 million), 1920-23 (by Kemal, 300,000, mainly in Cilicia, West, and Caucasus). In that case, it does become the first genocide of 20th c. --TigranTheGreat 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus

A legal analysis commissioned last year by the International Center for Transitional Justice in New York concluded that sufficient evidence existed to term the killings a "genocide" under international law.(http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4024.html)

(Thanks to a joint research by me and my good buddy MarshallBagramyan :) ). In sum, just because the denialist position is covered widely, doesn't mean it should be covered here as much as the majority position.--TigranTheGreat 10:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I find A.Garnet's position ridiculous in its entirety. The article already gives too much emphasis on turkish denial, way too much. I don't see a section for neo-Nazi position in the Holocaust article. Add all you want in an Armenian Genocide denial page. It should not be here, as all denial of the Holocaust is in the Revisionism page and not in the main article.--Eupator 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eupator. Go make it its own article. Pschemp | ^Talk 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Deny is the most common and accepted word for a negative response to a charge: "I deny these charges." To say that "usually it denotes a negative meaning" is completely unwarranted. It also fits the most common definition: Deny: To declare untrue; contradict (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deny). As such, the term shall stay.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, is there a rule that prohibits those who are involved in the article from voting? You are an editor and I think your vote is both legitimate and important. The President of the US can cast a vote for himself, I don't see why can't you.--TigranTheGreat 10:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No there is none, the decision of not voting is mine. Fad (ix) 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is unfair and can not be the solution to the disputed and questionable genocide allegations. I am taking this issue to the arbitration. There is voting, nodboy is informed, couple of armenians and you remove the tag giving the illusion to people that the issue is not disputed. The tag should stay there and should remain there. Otherwise, I am taking this to the arbitration. Let me know your response in couple of days. --ramil 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I allowed 5 days for the voting. But not one person that didn't want it removed came along in that time. There was plenty of opportunity for people to read this page. And how was I supposed to announce it other than to put the message here? I think the fact that you're stereotyping everyone that voted as being Armenian shows your bias.

You're the only person to show up here to want the tag, a full week after the vote was started. I was never going to leave it longer than a week and you still would have lost the vote, so the tag stays off. John Smith's 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Several non-Armenians, including neutral administrators, participated in the voting process or assisted it by taking a neutral look at the article and suggesting modifications. Francis' contribution was very valuable in gaining informed, neutral consensus. The process was legitimate, and the tag shall stay off.--TigranTheGreat 09:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My armenian or pro-armenian friend John Smith. If you call the week as plenty of opportunity, my response to you is that it is nothing more than a perverted understanding of opportunity. Even unimportant elections in US towns take 3 months and that with notification to eveybody.

Also disputed issues should have the disputed tag. That is the rule of the Wikipedia. You can not address it with 8 votes:-)))) 8 votes and that is more than enough for you to lift the tag. My friend I would suggest you to learn more about democracy, elections and voting. Be more tolerant and don't try to manipulate the lack of voice form another side to achieve your dirty puporse of cheating people on alleged and never happened armenian genocide lies. If you want to learn more about armenian lies, I have put the link below in the armenian lies section, you can see it. I am taking it to the arbitration unless you bring back the tag. Rest assured. --71.195.182.195 13:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, as an anon, you don't have that right. Second, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please review the Wikipedia policy before lecturing others. Finally, no personal attacks....WP:NPA. This includes racist comments such as the Armenian lies comment. If you persist in doing this, you WILL be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A disputed article does not need a tag. Otherwise 100% of political wiki articles would have tags.

HAHAHAHA, yeah go to admins and ask for a 3 month vote. I'm sure they'll back you up ^____^ John Smith's 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he already tried here. Too bad it was incomprehensible.psch e mp | talk 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the link. Did you see the bit about me and "other Armenians". Oh yeah, like there's no one outside Armenia that supports the discussion on that page....... :p John Smith's 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's very nice. Evidently I've become an Armenian too, just by voting to remove the NPOV tag. psch e mp | talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes after removal of POV tag

A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted its authenticity as Genocide.

This should probably be reworded. I think the article is not particularly biased in content, however it is slightly biased in tone - I think that it could do with a copyedit by a more impartial user before removing the tag. If you want me to take this up I would be willing to attempt it, although as prior warning I have been accused of being Armenian! :) FrancisTyers 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. Please post the rewording here first and then we can all be happy about it. Pschemp | ^Talk 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I had a problem with this sentence myself. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Fadix, he has invested much in the article--if he has no problem with it, neither do I. I am strongly against removing the word "denial" for the reaspons explained elsewhere, as are most editors here. Don't worry about being called Armenian--your neutral track record and reputation speaks for itself.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Further note: It is believed that twenty-five major "concentration camps", why is concentration camps in scare quotes? - FrancisTyers 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Well maybe because some people object to the use of that word, but it should either be a different word or take the quotes off. Pschemp | ^Talk 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in maps of the camps, including the Germans during the war as well as concentration camps books(I noted one such work in the footnote). I placed it in scare quotes because Coolcat would delete it so the scare quotes were left intact. Remove the quote if you think it should. Fad (ix) 18:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes are discouraged by Wiki guidelines much like weasel words (WP:AWW)--words like "claim, allege," which pretend to be neutral but contain hidden POV. We shouldn't keep them just because someone keeps removing the entire phrase--NPOV is non-negotiable policy. They need to stay away.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of editing this article and getting in peoples way, I've copied the article to User:FrancisTyers/Armenian Genocide provisionally. I've adjusted the lead, if people agree with these adjustments and think that it is an improvement then I will continue with the rest of the article. If you disagree with any changes I've made, let me know here and I'll think about if its worth me continuing. - FrancisTyers 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So far so good. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've been through the whole thing, see: User:FrancisTyers/Armenian Genocide. I would say that there are still certain "issues" with the text, but I can't fix them as I don't know enough about the subject. One thing that it is sorely missing is inline citations. Stuff like It is believed that most of these were soon executed with a citation would be bad enough, but without a citation shows a significant bias. Who believes this? The discussion about "deportation" is misplaced, as is the comparison with Japanese during WWII, the modern term I think would be internally displaced person. If you think its worth me continuing I'll go through and add fact tags to the parts that, in my opinion, are in dire need of citation. Feel free to edit the page in my userspace if you think I've cut something important. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of citations is an issue of citing and not POV. I don't think the article needs to suffer from a glaring POV tag just because of that. I believe adding fact tags should suffice. Fadix is more knowledgable on this, but I believe "deportations" is the most common term used in literature with respect to the "displacements." Plus, it is somehow accurate, since we are talking about moving people from one part of a multi-part empire (Armenia, i.e. the homeland lf the people) to another part (Syria).--TigranTheGreat 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the citation is a matter of {{verify}} and not {{neutrality}}, however the two are interlinked in some way, for example it is POV to say It is believed that most of these were soon executed, it is not POV to say Scholars at the Kyrgyz State Institute of Genocide Historians believe that most of these were soon executed (purely random example). The deportation thing doesn't really matter, just that whole paragraph is clunky. Although this is not necessarily a problem for the NPOV tag. Have you considered RfC'ing this to get other editors to look it over? - FrancisTyers 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I copied in the version from my talk page and then reverted myself. My revision is here. I would encourage people to check it out and if they feel it is an improvement to merge the diffs. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Good except for these things:~~

(Idiocy Removed)

Thank you for working on this!Pschemp | ^Talk 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the diffs, all of those were in my edited version :)) I reverted back to the previous version expecting that someone would disagree, I just wanted to leave my edited version in the history for people to compare. - FrancisTyers 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh silly me...I looked at the diff but the wrong way around. Sorry! It makes much more sense now. Pschemp | ^Talk 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can see how it would be confusing :) - FrancisTyers 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sick of Turkey denying Christian masacres in Anatolia.

Even Hitler once said in reguards to the Jewish Holocaust, "Who remembers the Armenians?" It was to say that no one acknowledged it and he felt people would do the same for the Jewish question. This is wrong! This autrocity commited against Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians must be acknowledged. Turkey needs to cede territories stolen from Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. They even discriminate against their own co-religionists, the Kurds. They are not immune to justice. They must make right the wrongs of the past to move forward in peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) .

Please stick to the content of the article. Fad (ix) 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just can laugh to this. "needs to cede territories stolen". Are you a kid or something like that. Please make some research about America's history. This article is based on guesses and emotions. It was war times, Russia had attacked to ottomans and Armenians supported them, killed turkish villagers. One more thing, what is israel doing today? Is it genocide? Jewish soldier kills muslim kids. What is this? How can you name it. War? Please if you don't know anything about a topic, i mean deep knowledge just remain silent.

Reşit, from Turkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.56.38 (talk • contribs) .

How many genocides do you know which were not commited during an armed conflict or a war. Most genocides happened in armed conflicts, if a crime commited during wars or conflicts could not be termed as genocide most of the genocides currently considered as such would not have been the genocides they are said to be. Also, please both of you continue this discussion on your respective userspaces and stick to the content of the article. Fad (ix) 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as Israel is concerned Palestine never existed. It was always a part of Greater Syria as was Lebanon. The greedy Arab governments couldn't stand to see non Muslims get their own country. Look at the bloody civil war in Lebanon as an example. Sargonious

Armenian Lies

[removed comments not related to the article in question, personal attacks, and uncivility - FrancisTyers 17:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)]

Eagle, Hi, you'll note I've just removed your comments on this article, if you are going to take part in Wikipedia discussions, please focus your attention on the article in question, not the politics surrounding it. If you wish to discuss politics there are many other bulletin boards around the internet for this purpose.

Please take the time to read, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV before you decide to contribute again. Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 17:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, may be you become more civil and tolerant to dissent voice in this heavily armenian biased and dominated web site. The entire isssue of alleged and never happened armenian genocide is political. You recommend me to learn more about Wikipedia policies or rules, but I would recommend you to learn more about politics and regional politics and history before you delete something or argue against of it. Also learn to think critically. Not everythink that armenian zealots say on this page can be true, can they? Unless you are armenian, then it is another issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.182.195 (talk • contribs) .

Please outline where I have been uncivil. As far as I am aware I haven't. I'm certainly tolerant to dissent, if you read my contributions you might see that I've requested inline citation and described the article as biased in tone. I stand by my actions however, if you are not willing to take part in reasoned debate regarding the content of this Wikipedia article and if you persist in making personal attacks I will remove your comments, as I would remove the comments of anyone who was acting in this way. I appreciate that this is an emotional subject for you but I think you would have more impact on the content of the article if you made reasoned arguments backed up with good sources rather than personal attacks. - FrancisTyers 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK anon contributor above - lets say this article was concerning the Holocaust - an event to which the Armenian Genocide has great parallels (well at least most anyone [and certainly most all scholars of history and genocide in particular] would agree but only certain folks of Turkish descent and/or affiliations might not). Lets now recast your comments in this light and consider what it is you might be saying here - and who in other circumstances might be saying such things -

"XXX, may be you become more civil and tolerant to dissent voice in this heavily Jewish biased and dominated web site. The entire isssue of alleged and never happened Jewish Holocaust is political. You recommend me to learn more about Wikipedia policies or rules, but I would recommend you to learn more about politics and regional politics and history before you delete something or argue against of it. Also learn to think critically. Not everythink that Jewish zealots say on this page can be true, can they? Unless you are Jewish, then it is another issues?"

I hope that contributors and readers of this encyclopedia can understand what type of person you are when you claim that the Armenian genocide is "alleged and never happened" - is just "political" and when you claim that those who believe that it did occur and that all the eyewitnesses and facts regarding such are stricly the work of "armenian zealots" we can truly see the value - or lack therof of your input on this issue. --THOTH 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi my armenian friend. I don't blame you for your unconditional belief in the never happened happening of the pseudo armenian genocide as this has been and is the official line of the armenian church which has used the genocide to mobilize armenians aroudn one issue, chosen Turks as a scapegoat (not without reason I will come to the reason later)and prevent their assimiliation within western societies. They have definatly been successful in this.

However, the alleged armenian genocide has no parallel to the Jewsih genocide that happened in late 1930s and 1940s. The Jewsish were persecuted by Germans just because they were Jewsih, to acclaim Jewsih belongings and without any ressistance and uprising from Jewsih. They were killed without discrimination. In the case of the armenian issue, what we see is the systematic fighting by armenian militia and fundamentalist groups against Turkey, killins of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Turks and the real threat to the very existence of Turks and Turky in Anatolia. This has happened thanks to the flow of millions of francs and dollars from the West and the Russian army supplies and you know this better than me. Then Turkey takes measures, kills milita and deports armenians who are used by Western empires to weakenn Turkey and kill Turks, Kurds and muslims.

NOw the Turksih arhchives are open and anybody can see them. You can find the list of killed Azerbaijanis, Kurds and Turks by armenian milita and terrorists in this official web site of the Turksih arhicves department. http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/ The number is roughly around 500,000. how this can be compared to Jewsih genocide, which unconditioanally happened, there are facts and these were documented and everybody knows it. But somewhow it happens that only countries which try to use the pseudo "armenian genocide" issue are chrstian states, not a single mostly muslim country has recognized this alleged genocide, where the Jewsih genocide is remembered in all coutnries includin mostly muslim coutnries such as Azerbaijan, Turkey, Usbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tataristan and etc. These are facts my armenian friend, not lies or falsifed facts presented by christian missionaries and the armenian church. Why you don't tell the world how you have killed 500,000 Kurds, Turks and Azerbaijanis. The list is available from the web site I sent to you, not to mention the barbaric killing methods of armenians. --71.195.182.195 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The above statement does injustice to the islam, both by its very nature and by not being factually accurate. Lebanon has a moslim majority and recognizes the Armenian genocide. gidonb 00:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

who cares Lebanon? We say "ottoman archive is open" and you say "Lebanon recognize Armenian genocide"!

To not forget that both Iran and Syria were to recognize it before Turkey pressurised them. Fad (ix) 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We have 12 neighbor country and all of them is enemy. Please don't say me Iran and Syria!! They are supporter of kurdish bloody terorist organization PKK. Ofcourse they will support everything against Turkey. It is just political.

awkward sentence

"Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise what is termed the Armenian Genocide did occur,..." seems a little bit awkward. Any ideas how to fix it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.115.104 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps it should go "Although many countries have recognized the events of 1915 to fall under the United Nation's definition of genocide, Turkey remains adamant and rejects the notion that the Young Turkish government had established a state-wide policy dedicated to the extermination of the Armenians" or somwhere along those lines. Although I agree, the sentence structure is poorly written. --MarshallBagramyan 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending rewrite

There were more than 900 thousand Armenians who had been recorded as refugees from Ottoman Empire and surviving WWI. What is called "estimates" above are based on a CLAIMED number of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians being alive before WWI. After subtracting remaining (about) 1 million Armenians from the CLAIMED number of 2.5 Million Ottoman Armenians we are left with "1.5 million Armenians were killed". Turkey has never denied a large number of its Armenian population lost their lives, from all kinds of reasons including famine and murder. But, Turkey also dares to say, so did Turks and Kurds.
An excellent source on Ottoman Armenians, going through official Ottoman population records is a book by American historian Prof. Justin McCarthy, titled "Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire," New York, New York University Press, 1983. A summary can be found in (http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/4-McCarty(65-85).pdf)
WWI ended in 1919, for Ottomans, when they surrendered. As you notice, the title of this section reads "1914 to 1923". Why 1923? Because the Armenian propagandists would love to extend their claimed sufferings until the foundation date of modern Turkish Republic (1923). This should be another example on how far the Armenian side can go by "playing with numbers."

Perhaps this could be rewritten and included, perhaps it should be moved to the denial page? - FrancisTyers 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think terms such as "Armenian propagandist" etc. fit in a Wikipedia article, also the claim of more than 900,000 is unfounded, McCarthys numbers which are considered to be overestimation find out 880,000 when the League of Nations figure of refugees in Soviet borders also included Armenians outside of the pre-war Ottoman borders, like those that left after the Alexandripole attacks, Kars and the other territories that the Ottoman penatrated and that the Armenians there were not Ottoman Armenians proper. Also, I just hope for the sake of Wikipedia that this AhmedCosar who registered is not this Ahmed Cosar the famous newsgroup spammer http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ahmet_Cosar if that is so, we will have serious problems, and since he edited the other page about Ahmet Cosar, I'm afraid it may be him. Fad (ix) 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I'd really like to see this [4] picture used on the article. 141.217.84.59 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad quality picture and not well sourced, there are other pictures that should be included, not this one. Fad (ix) 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Al those pictures in the article are fake. Look at the first one, soldier are wearing a different type of hat. The Ottomans weared fez's, this is manipulating the history. And if you look at the image were a man is lying death on the ground, you will notice he's wearing typical Turkish dress. And if you look realy good, you will notice on the picture with skeletons that one of the skulls has a fez. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.35.24 (talk • contribs)

Missing information

In article, we should add the number of killed turkish people. For example Kars , A city at eastern part of Turkey totaly killed by russions and armenians army. We are not talking about small vileges as you, we are talking about cities. Should we add guys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.250.216 (talk • contribs) .—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Onuronur (talk • contribs)

Um..No. Pschemp | ^Talk 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One question. Kars was part of Russian Armenia before the Turkish nationalist troops annexed it. Where are the Armenians of Kars? It is true that Armenians burned villages in Kars, but this was after most Ottoman Armenian casualties were recorded during the Armenian genocide and when the nationalist troops invaded it, there was about nothing left of the Armenian population there. Fad (ix) 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Question - Does the Holocaust article list the number of German casualties at Stalingrad? --THOTH 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. There was no jewish army. In German genocide, Hitler was thinking that his race was the best race. In turkish history things are different. There was a war. Big countries was attacking to Ottaman empire. So A crowed army was needed. The age region in ottoman army was 16-50. So every person who can carry gun was supposed to join to the army to defend the country. And even women were carring guns to the battle area. What was happening is : Armenians refused to join ottoman army and fougth aginst us. Most of the turk were killed by them. They supported french and russion army. And many armenian gangs attacked to innocent people. I am asking this innocient question : Why dont we add to this article turkish lost ,the numbers from turkish side? (By the way what is this unsigned thing? Somebody wrote unsigned below my question.)erhan 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1) There was no Armenian "Army" prior to 1917 (and its actions were almost exclusivly in defense of Yerevan province which was then part of greater Russia and later in defense of the first Armenian Republic from attack by Turkish troops after WWI - when we speak of the Armenian Genocide we primarily speaking of the events surounding the round up and murders of Armenian civilians under orders of the Ottoman Turkish state that occured in the 1915/16 period. 2) Any issue of Turks killed by Russians is a matter of concern when discussing military events of WWI - much as we might discuss German casualties when talking about battles such as Stalingrad in WWII. Neither are directly associated with either the Holocaust or Armenian Genocide itself respectively. 3) Antolian Armenians responded to draft call ups and enlisted in the ottoman Military where they were forced into work gangs and eventually slaughted. Many Armenians did resist being called up and hid or otherwise fled. Many Turks and Kurds and such did the same. It is no secret that gangs of Turkish and Kurdish deserters terrorized villages in the Eastern provinces during the war acting as bandits. Some Armenians did as well. However this whole claim of Armenian "gangs" creating so much havoc during this period is highly overblown (instances were small scale and localized at best) and is the result more of Turkish anti-Armenian propoganda at the time then any real issue. Much of the stories told by Turks now of relatives being killed by Armenian "gangs" relates to revenge murders that occured by Armenians who escaped the Genocide and fought Turks after 1917. Even "monuments" to such things in Eastern Turkey today that i have visited attest to this fact. 4) there was in fact armed resitance by Jews in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos in WWII as well as Jews who fled Germany and the other occupied nations and joined the armies of those opposing Germany - much as many Armenians did...does this equally justify the genocide commited against each of these peoples?--THOTH 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just your imagination...

Battle of Sarikamish (1915).. By the way somebody changed the article.. It was written "Armenian army". Anyway I saw it there. erhan 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Erhan, this opinion is covered in the article: More recently, lower figures of Armenian casualties were presented by Yusuf Halacoglu, the director of the Turkish history foundation. In his said calculations, he estimates that a total of 56,000 Armenians perished during the period due to war conditions, and less than 10 thousand were actually killed. In his other research, he maintains that over 500,000 Turks were killed by Armenians. It is a quite comprehensive article. gidonb 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, erhan. Turks killed by Armenian partisans has nothing to do with the planned murder of Armenian civilians. If you want to talk about Armenian uprisings, talk about it on the relevant WWI page. But don't try and deflect attention away from the brutality of what happened to the Armenians by talking about that sort of stuff. Ref women fighting. Perhaps they fought to protect their homes from Turkish soldiers that were planning to rape them - who knows? But it still isn't relevant. In any case, what gave Turks the right to tell Armenians what to do? You're just condoning brutal imperialism if you're implying that if a subject race doesn't do what the ruler says it's legitimate to wipe them out. Turks were imperialists, so they had no right to butcher Armenians - they wouldn't have had the right even if they were other Turks. John Smith's 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking second part of the story (After the war, relocation period). "what gave Turks the right to tell Armenians what to do?" I didnt get you. Armenian and turks were living together in the same land and were being ruled by ottoman empire, so ofcourse Turks had the right to tell Armenians what to do. You mean ottoman empire requested different things from armenians as compared to turks? A facist request? What about raping turkish woman they were also woman there were no difference. These kind of things are happening in all war in history and nobody knows if it is true. You mean that turks were facist and hating armenians and raped them? So article is generally about second half of the story. Relocation of Armenians. erhan 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're advocating imperialist slavery? Imperialism is wrong, ergo no imperial master has a right to tell conquered people's what to do. Or are you telling me that if Turkey was taken over tomorrow you would just do as your new colonial masters said? "Go fight our wars for us, slave!" It was bloody obvious that some Armenians would rebel when order to fight & die in the Turks' war. Murder of innocents can never be justified. John Smith's 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

John, Still in Turkey ,military service is compulsory. If you are turkish citizen, you have to do it. Otherwise you will be arrested. It means, in turkey, armenians joins the army :). Anyway OK they had the right to not join the army. I am not saying anything for this. The point that I can not admit is "They attacked us". In adana, Folk espaced to mountains because armenians were killing them like a game. You are drawing a picture of innocent armenian people and cruel turks and you are doing assumption about turks like "raping armenian womans??". Actually turks were so busy at Gelibolu.(1915 - 360.000 soldier died from turkish side- 300.000 died from english and anzaks)erhan 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've recently read Holocaust deniers claiming that Germany was much too occipied and overwhelmed by a multi-front war to waste such effort to systmatically round up Jews just to murder them....the Armenians rounded up and sent marching to their deaths or who were otherwise brutally killed by the Ottoman Turk CUP regiem were equally innocent as the Jews that the German Nazi regiem rounded up and killed. That you cannot "admit" these things has more to do with your blind refusal to accept documented facts and the truth because of nationalistic reasons and being force fed denialist propoganda then it has anything to do with a truthful version of reality. --THOTH 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand you why you compare with germans. Armenians killed 500.000 turk I dont remember Jews did the same. (Keep in mind that total population 15 million) And ottoman empire didnt command to kill armenians. Is there any evidence that ottoman empire intended a genocide? Ottoman empire was "sick man of the Europe" even there was no regular army. And you compare it with germany which had the best army and decided to rule the world. I congratulate you! erhan 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are most incredibly misinformed - what can I say? Most sad. First this claim of 500,000 Turks killed by Armenians is at best just laughable. I believe that discussions of the pityfuly fabricated documentation which are used to support such figures has already been extensively discussed and exists in the archives here. Consider this - in an interview apearing in the Turkish paper Radikal on Oct 9 2000 Turkish scholar Halil Berkety answered this question the following way: What were the losses of the Muslim population in that area during this same period? They may be 10,000 or 20,000. But it's not a question of `They only killed a few, and the Ottomans killed a lot'. The issue is as follows: The activities of the Armenian guerrilla bands were generally localized, small-scale, and isolated. But for hundreds of thousands to die, there would have to be a population of this size, which couldn't be attained merely by wandering around the villages and hamlets. In addition, it's deceptive to turn the matter into a question as to whether or not Enver and Talat Pasha gave a written order to the `Yesil' or Catli of the day. They never did so, and no such document will ever be found. In this regard, the witnesses of the day are extremely important. There is a huge body of eyewitness accounts and visual material concerning the Armenian incidents that never reaches the Turkish public. Turkish public opinion is essentially ignorant of what the people of Germany, England, France, and America see and read. There has been much discussion here already of CUP/Ottoman Turkish intent to commit genocide on the Armenians - and of course there is a great body of scholarly evidence and eyewitness testimony which supports such contentions. And there can be no comparison between the massive state sponsored campaign to wipe out an entire group of people and the actions of some disorganized Armenian "gangs' who may have roamed about the countryside (much as Circassian and Kurdish "gangs" were doing at the very same time and before...) Likewise I should point out (and have recently) the parallels between Holocaust denial and Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide - a great many of the exact same arguments are used - including the fact that each nation was beset by a multi-front war (the fact that each nation was the agressor is never mentioned I should add) and that each nations could not spare the resources for genocide...yet somehow they did - and we know how in great detail - so such generalities as you make cannot be used to effectively deny what is well known. Lastly your comments reflect your ignornace not only of the Armenian Genocide and of WWI but of WWII as well - particularl concerning the state of the German Army at the start of the war. And the similaritiesbetwen the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide are too numerous and great for you to deny such based on your pathetic gibberish. --THOTH 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some further exerpts from the Oct 9 2000 interview of Halil Berktay that should be of interest (concerning orders to kill Armenians) - Berktay: At that time there were 1 million and 750 thousand Armenians living in Eastern Anatolia. The deportation order issued by the ruling military triumvirate was drawn up so as to include all the Armenians in the region, without exception. These things are documented in writing. There was no mention of massacres or slaughter. The provincial governors and garrison commanders were directed to deport the Armenians to the region south of Turkey's current borders. However, it's clear that, in addition to these official orders, separate, non-written orders were given to the most rapacious members of the `Teskilat-i Mahsusa' (`Special Organization'), who worshipped violence and were not bound by adherence to any normal moral code. For the Armenians to be killed? Yes. Historian Taner Akcam has demonstrated this in a very sound way. There was on the one hand a legal decision and implementation, and on the other another mechanism entirely that proceeded in an illegal manner. --THOTH 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Turks died from the brutal regime, and the Ittihadist should take most of the blame. The Ittihadist even issued an order condemning any Muslim who may hide Armenians to death without being trialed, if the Armenians were brutal murderers, I wonder then why the Ittihadists would need to issue such an order to stop them hidding Armenians. Would you hide people that would butcher your family? Fad (ix) 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ň

Guruns 2435

I verified, it is indeed 235 in the English version.

Upon this instruction of the Ministry of the Interior, 235 people were arrested in Istanbul. This day, 24 April, on which the Armenians hold demonstrations each year claiming it is the date of the massacre, is the day when these 235 people were arrested.

I always thought the Turkish version was not exactly the same and therefor trusted those sources using Gurun's book Turkish version as references [5], [www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/24041915/index.html], [6], [7]...

But the official Turkish version has been presented by Esat Uras and is indeed 2,345 (Uras E., Tarihte Ermenliler ve Ermeni Meselesi, 2nd ed., (Istanbul, 1976), p.612). This figure is also in other Turkish publications, like Cem Akaş article, who quote Dr. Heinrich Pudor in Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu; Genelkurmay, Ankara (1983); p.168. [8], but it seems has been replaced by 'soldiers' in the English version, can anyone check if it is present in Guruns Turkish version and that the translation like in the cases of Uras work?

In any cases, this number is present in Turkish government websites as I have shown above, I will replace the source with Uras. Fad (ix) 19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see from reading some of the above you had a large hand in composing this article. If you trust "Turkish government websites" so much, then your entire article needs to be revised. It is obvious 2,345 Armenians were not all arrested on April 24. Lepsius confirmed the 235 figure in 1921, and Peter Balakian exaggerated only a little with 250 in The Burning Tigris. Let us refer to your partisan sources [9], Tessa Hofmann and Taner Akcam, for what may appoximate the truth: "From April 24, 1915 hundreds of Armenians were arrested... According to the Turkish scholar Akcam, the total figure of arrests is 2,345." (In other words, 2,345 may be the total of all, "from" April 24 and not "on" April 24.)

If an English language version of a book is available, I believe it is only fair that you refer to the English version. You did not do so with the Gurun book. This is an English language site, and the capacity to check foreign sources is beyond the ability of most. Blissmiss 08:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article before your edition, it present both figures, this has nothing to do with if I believe it or not. German records also present figures of 30 thousand Armenians evacuated from the Capital city. It already says several hundreds which includes the statistics in the hundreds, (like the one of 235, or the 300 or even the claimed 600), for those reasons I don't see why I needed to refer to a version that present nothing new to the several hundreds already included there. Also, keep in mind that the Turkish version is the original one. Fad (ix) 17:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, the figure of 2,345 is said to represent April 24, so it can not be said to be representing a total after the increase of 235. You can not try to matching two set of different sources and numbers as if they complet each others, since it would be your interpretation. Fad (ix) 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure of the source or applicability of the 2,000+ figure in this case however let me make a few points. On the night of April 24 1915 there was a documented round up of 235 prominant Armenians from Istanbul. These individuals were taken away together (though seperated and sent to at least two different destinations en route). At the same time and on or around this same date - a great number of other Armenian civil leaders and political activists and other prominant citizens were rounded up and taken away in cities throghout Anatolia. Additionally this process continued in Istanbul and other cities throghout the following years until 1918 and Turkey's surrender from the war and the CUP abdication. This policy and strategy to round up intellectuals and community leaders - to severe the head of the nation as it were - is a clear sign that the Turks were planning the "final solution" to the "Armenian Question" - ensuring that even if the Ottoman Government failed in the war (as was looking very likely when these round-ups began) and even if the CUP policy to eliminate the Armenians were not to fully suceed before war's end - the Armenian leadership would be destroyed and the Armenian people would have no voice and no hope of quickly reconstituting and being able to articulate themselves and petition for relief from Ottoman Turkish oppression. Of course the presentation should be accurate in terms of numbers - where exact numbers can be known (and who cares what Turkish propoganda claims other then to know and understand how the Turks attempt to continue the Armenian Genocide through denial and distortion). What is important to convery - IMO - is the reasoning behind this action of eliminating the Armenian leadership and educated inteligencia and leading represetnatives of Armenian culture and arts. The motives of the CUP to eliminate such a thing as the Armenian nation begins with these acts - is made evident by such acts. This needs to be properly illustrated and explained.--THOTH 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are interpreting what those numbers means, but the fact of the matter is that there are many different set of numbers and I decided to present them without interpreting what they mean. Blissmiss, add Gurun books English version, like I told you, if you think it is relevent. Fad (ix) 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not having read the specific source material I don't know what each of these numbers represents - what whoever has put them foreward believes they represent. My point is that the act of rounding up these Armenian leaders (civil, cultural, political etc) was done for a purpose. For readers to understand the Armenian Genocide and how the Turks enacted it - they need to understand the process by which the CUP/Ottoman authorities disenfranchised the Armenian community/nation. These roundups - and the initial round up, arrest, improsonment, torture and murder of these notable Armenians was done with specific intent and purpose. Understanding this and how these acts fit into the larger scheme of enacting genocide - specifically of course the Armenian Genocide - is what needs to be conveyed. It matters not if it were 200 or 2000 - the intent and the result was the same. That scholars of the Armenian Genocide rely on certain records or historical accounts and that Turkish denialists claim otherwise is perhaps another interesting footnote - but in my mind - of lesser significance then properly explaining to what effect these arrests and murders had on the Armenian community - Anatolian wide and specifically for the Armenian communities in Istanbul and in all the other towns and cities where such round ups preceeded deportations of the now leaderless population. Additionally - and this fact also cannot be ignored - is that the Turks very specifically were concerned that the Armenian community be decapitated not only to blunt resistance to the murderous Genocide being enacted - but to ensure that Armenians would remain leaderless and deprived of cultural stand outs for the generation following. All essentail elements to the genocide. --THOTH 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag removal

Well, after waiting some time after the vote was completed, it seems the voting was successful, and the removal of the POV tag was generally accepted by editors and administrators involved in this page. I would like to congratulate everyone involved here on this occasion--any time a dispute tag is removed, it's a sign of progress for Wikipedia. I would also like to thank everyone who voted and contributed to the process, including to FrancisTyers for his work in tuning the little imperfections of the article to render it ready for POV tag removal. --TigranTheGreat 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No probs, it was important to restore "credibility" in the article. Good job, everyone! John Smith's 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah congrats - good job - sorry I missed the vote.--THOTH 04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I wonder if it will ever be possible to get a NPOV on this article. The problem begins with the very title: Armenian Genocide. Since the dispute centers on whether one should call this a genocide, it seems that the very first sentence should make it clear that scholars have not agreed on whether this tragic event is better described as intercommunal violence or genocide.

I notice that Justin McCarthy is in the references, but he is not mentioned in the text. Bernard Lewis is mentioned nowhere. These are not minor scholars, their opinion is respected and it matters what they think. We will not achieve a NPOV by ignoring them.

Perusal of the talk pages suggests that many contributors consider this event as identical in nature to the Holocaust. This is an unfortunate association, since it marks those who would try to present the Turkish view of events as similar to Nazis and Holocaust deniers. We must try to understand the Turkish perspective, not unthinkingly condemn it, since only in that way can we achieve a NPOV.

I think the article can be improved in several significant ways, and I have these suggestions:

An article this contentious should provide a citation for every assertion. As it stands today, the first citation appears in the 11th paragraph. That wouldn't be acceptable even for a sophomore history paper, and it certainly isn't acceptable for something this important.

In the same way that the articles on religion avoid inflammatory words such as "fundamentalist" we should avoid inflammatory words such as "Holocaust," "revisionist," "propagandist," etc. I see that in fact some editors have done good work in this direction, but clearly more needs to be done.

There is almost nothing here about the number of Muslim and Jewish casualties. There is excellent published work on this issue--Justin McCarthy might be the best source. We need to show that we are just as concerned about the death of a Moslem or Jew as we are about the death of a Christian.

A serious article like this should shed frivilous vanity items like "Armenian Genocide in Pop Culture."

Anthon.Eff 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy should definitly be included in the article, as well as an article on revisionism, this is what it is called and McCarthy himself consider himself as a revisionist and he repeated it during the 11th Turkish Congress of History as well as during an ATAA conference. So, I don't see why the term revisionism can't be used when not only its definition apply, but that even those that are called such do not deny doing just that.

Secondly, the inclusion of McCarthy should have more spaces than this article could permit it, and for this reason he should be largely included in an article about what is termed denial as well as the way McCarthy has been answered by the academia.

This article is about the Armenian losses, I don't see why Muslim or Jewish losses should be included here, other communities like the Assyrians who were destroyed are even not included.

As for the citations, there will be citations and a lot of work has been done to make this article close to an OK article.

And finally, I don't think you are getting exactly what the NPOV policy is really about. For exemple, you claim that scholars have not agreed of either or not it is intercommunial violence or genocide... I hope that if you are knowledgeble enought of McCarthy you are also knowledgeble enought that what you said above is simply not accurate. For exemple, one of the two scholars you present, Lewis, before his History department has been financed by Turkey, he termed in his book what Armenians faced as Holocaust, and when Israel Charny and others have requested him to provide the sources of his research that made him change his mind and declare that it was not a genocide, he didn't answer. Even McCarthy recognize that most scholars do support the thesis of genocide, Halacoglu and other such scholars call this thesis an international lie, to be considered an international lie, the thesis in question should be supported 'internationally.'

But there again, the evidences that really made me believe that you don't get what NPOV is all about is when you question the title of the article, for now I will assume good faith, but if you read Wikipedia policies perhaps you will understand why it was an exercise for me to assume good faith there. If you research the Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal, the second most reffered genocide is the Armenian genocide, it is called such, that it happened or not does in no way change the fact that it is an expression that is more than notable, in fact, it is very notable.

And finally, you say that we should try understanding Turkish perspective, this is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia present and do not try to understand perspectives. The Turkish government has a section, also on the introduction of the article its position is made clear, but the Turkish government can not have equal space, or the minority of Western scholars such as McCarthy can not have as much space as the majority position. -Fad(ix)

Hello Anthon, I don't understand the difference between a Turkish position regarding the Armenian genocide and a neo-Nazi position regarding the Holocaust? You didn't elaborate much. In addition, there are revisonist scholars who deny the Holocaust who are ten times more reputable than McCarthy and Lewis combined. David Irving comes to mind. Revisionists can be scrutinized in a separate article, such is the case with Holocaust revisonists. The same should apply here. --Eupator 00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Eupator - you are correct - both Holocaust and Genocide deniers make the very same claims concerning the victims of the respective genocides. Each dispute the death counts, causes of death and intent and observed actions/eyewitness testimony and each claim that their is a conspiracy of lies against Germans/Nazis (of WWII) and Turks/CUP/Ottomans (of WWI)...each (falsely) claim that genocide claims are propoganda and each uses this - Germans lost more and Turks lost more during this period then the minority groups (ignoring the fact of war and that their nations were the agressors and lost people due to the harsh conditions of war and that minority losses were largely due to very specific observed and documented [horifying] campaigns against them). In each case they ignore the mountains of evidence that the governments sponsored a mass killing campaign - (and against all evidence) claiming that their nations' were involved in all encompassing multi front wars and could never spare the resources to do such a thing - of course they even (again falsely and contrary to all evidence) dispute that there was intent or motivation. The only real difference of course is that most of the world (exept rabid Jew haters) fully accepts the Holocaust and believes that deniers are just either crack pots or haters and confers no legitimacy on such - when inj the Turkish case - denial is state policy and is supported by massive state funds. Of course the Turks of today continue to repeat the state propoganda of the period and teach such to their children and population and the myths are perpetuated. The reason that denial persists on such a mass scale among Turks but not among Germans is that after WWII Germany was totally defeated and the Nazis were ruined and utterly discredited. The Germans were forced to admit their crimes and repent - where the Turks - through Ataturk's nationalistic revolution - managed to hold off the weary Entente powers from exercising dominion over the core of the Ottoman EMpire after the war and stave off attempts at International justice/prosocution (which was an entirely new concept - never before suggested or tried - BTW) - and this is reflected in the final Lussaunne treaty (which BTW the US never did sign) - where the Turks were able to exert tremendous political pressure to eradicate all mention of the Armenians and others killed by the CUP. Likewise the new nationalist government which formed the Republic of Turkey was largely made up of ex-CUP memebers (could anyone imagine a post-war Germany governed by ex-Nazis?). This fact and the particulars of the Republic of Turkey's nation building myth - where Turks were seen (by themselves) as victims of Imperialist machinations against the Ottoman Empire (and with the Armenian's situation neatly fitting into this created history - thus "Armenians stabbed Turks in the Back" and "Armenians were just the pawns of the Imperialist powers out to destroy the Ottoman EMpire" etc) - one can see how they have been able to elude justice and continue to avoid comming to terms with their responsibility in the tragedy of the Armenians. Over the years - as Armenian groups have increased their pressure in both academic and political circles - it has become increasingly difficult for Turkey to out and out deny that the CUP/Ottomans ever deliberatly killed any Armenians - so their denial has gone from outright to the making of (unture and utimatly unsupportable)excuses - such as "the killings were mutual" and "armenians also commited a genocide against Turks" and "it was war and Ottomans never meant to kil Armenians - but Turks died too as the conditions were so bad and maybe some lawless types took matters into their own hands but one cannot blame the government" and "we are not the same Turks - how can we be held responsible" etc - and of course now - with the availability of more balanced information (for Turks - both in print and via the internet...) and with the pressure of European Union acssession - the Turks are modifying their stance again - to admit more - though not any more then they have too. In the meantime Armenians have had to live with 91 years of denial and pain and Turkey's shameful denial - which includes destruction of Armenian heritage in Anatolia and obliteration of all traces of Armenian presence and contributions within the Ottoman Empire (and prior) - and these things continue and are allowed to do so. Thus the tremendous importance that informational sites such as this get it right and refuse to give in to further outrageous and wrong Turkish attempts at denial. No one would stand for it concerning the Holocaust and no one should stand for it here! --THOTH 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is problematic at the moment

This is a contraversial topic and is most certainly not neutral.

NPOV:

The title is a fine one as mentioned above. The NPOV tag should stay for the prime reason reason that the Goverment of Turkey as well as many scholars claim that a genocide classification is inacurate.
General attitude is another one. Article line after line is dedicated to "prove" genocide and basicaly. Even oposing view is a "Denial of Armenian genocide" (that means that Armenian Genocide is a fact and oposing pov is a big lie), come on!

Images:

many of the images are not even sourced and/or their sources are from some other wiki. What is the copyright status? According to this article the events had taken place in 1919 and that does not make inages immidiately in PD.
What makes the corpses Armenian. There are images proven false. How do we know these images are not from an unrelated incident? Another crutial question "Where are the images taken at?".
The images captions are also inaproporate. Ex: Image:Armeniangenocide1.jpg, Image:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg... Really... Thats a very poor description and umm... not remotely close to NPOV.

I can ONLY agree to remove the tag if this article becomes a Wikipedia:Featured Article.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't mind that I completly ignore you and pretend you do not exist? Fad (ix) 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure but then do not revert my edits as you are failing to ignore me otheriwse. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat.

Tough, you are not God. We have already had a discussion and vote - no one raised any objections until afterwards. You can't just wade in now and make demands like "I can ONLY agree to remove the tag if this article becomes a Featured Article". There is no reason why the article cannot be improved, but you have no authority to make demands like that. If one user could insist tags always stayed on articles, anything vaguely historical would always be "disputed". Grow up. John Smith's 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Eeto,

The featured article worthyness is determined by heavy peer review. In order to be a featured article everything on the page must be prefect it is not even just about weather it is well written or not or if it is NPOV.

I have the authority to make any demand just like any wikipedian. I basicaly demand you convince the real wikipedia comunity determines if article is NPOV or not. If you say it is neutral enough to warrant the removal of the tag, this should be the fastes FAC to pass.

It is you who are the Gods dictating this article. Judging from the speed I get reverted, it isn't suprising why this article is so biased.

By the way, you have insulted me yet again. I urge you to stop with insults as if you continue you can be blocked easily for that.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This won't be made a Featured Article just because it is "neutral". There are plenty of "neutral" pages that never get a look in.

If anyone is doing the insulting, it's you by insinuating that the contributors to this page are not "real" wikipedians. So before you threaten to go to the admins, be careful you don't leave yourself open to an action either. John Smith's 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concers regarding actions that could be taken against me, meanwhile I invite you to civility. A good number of admins are already watching as I consulted them prior to making edits.

Real wikipedia comunity is WP:PR and/or WP:FAC. If you can convince random stratngers that this article is neutral, then I have no reason to object. At its current state this article however would not survive a FAC for certain judging from my experience from FAC process.

Firstly there is systematic bais, people get reverted alsmot instantly.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you were free to vote on the poll, no one prevented you to discuss with others and get the support to vote. Second of, I refrained myself to vote and tried to not influence people to vote to remove it. And finally, if this article was placed to be a featured article candidate, I would refuse it myself because there still is many work left to get the quality needed. But only a minority of the articles here in Wikipedia are featured, and there are some that are featured that I'd consider still slightly POV. From the non-featured articles only a minority has a POV tag. Furthermore, you still seem to not understand when the totally disputed tag should be added, that the tag about POV should be maintained, I have no comment about that I just accept the result of the vote, but I would totally reject the uses of the totally disputed tag because it does not fit there and that you still push to get that tag there either suggest that you do not understand why it is used, either there is an ill intend behind it. I will not go as far as Thoth there, because I oppose to his position for many reasons, but that every claims in this article are indeed official claims is not a matter of dispute, what is a matter of disputed is if this article maintains a neutral language, but suppose that it does not, this in no way justify alone questioning the factuality. Because Wikipedia policies are clear there, Wikipedia present positions and NOT facts, so the only way that a factuality dispute could emerge is if I claim that someone maintains a position which he does not maintain. If you can present such an evidences comming from the article, I will be the first to add the factuality disputed tag, if you can't just please stop wasting the time of the editors this article is vanadlised and spammed very often and we don't need a veteran to revert because he refuse to adhere to the community decision. Fad (ix) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that each article which is neutral should be able to become a featured article...--Army1987 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV??? This article says that Turks burned armenians in 25 oven. Immm.. What an imagination.

Obviously we aren't reading the same article. Fad (ix) 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the poster above that the NPOV tag should not have been removed. While I don't think a "totally disputed" tag may be necessary, I feel that the NPOV tag that was here until February should remain for the time being. As evidenced by the continuing debate on this page, I think the neutrality of the tone of the article continues to be an issue for some people. They may not be a majority of the posters here (and therefore may not be able to win a community vote); however, a majority vote is not a prerequisite for keeping or removing an NPOV tag. The concerns with the article that some people still have can be addressed by keeping the tag for the time being. Shelby28 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enought, but the main problem here is that all those who have opposed the removal of the tag have requested things that are contrary to Wikipedias policies, that the article generate controversies on the talk page is not alone evidences of a nonrespect of the NPOV policy. The question here is, do the article give an opinion or present positions? If the article has sections that do not present positions but rather provide opinions or established facts, I would like you see those sections and trying to improve them. I really wish to improve the quality of the article, but when people want a tag included because the articles name is 'Armenian Genocide' rather than 'so-called Armenian Genocide' or that the article doesn't give half of the space to the official Turkish government position, the request is not serious. Again, either you help us track those POV so that we can improve them, either you criticise the article without helping us much. There is no question that I will ignore Coolcat, we've been there and the guy want something such: "This claimed genocide is disputed, many support the thesis that there was a genocide and many others don't..." And then, go on deleting nearly all the sections about the special organization etc., or deleting who maintains what position, which clearly would be to POVize the article, because those adhering to a position should be included..., you can not delete from one side and present a 50-50 coverage and claim that this is what is NPOV as CoolCat claims.Fad (ix) 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the NPOV tag be added simply because Cool Cat says so; I do feel as, as FrancisTyers expresses below, that the article still has numerous POV issues and needs the tag. He brings up several good exampes which also caught my eye. For example, instead of "A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized...." in the first paragraph, how about "Some countries"? Or 'Twenty-four countries" (That's the number of countries given later in the article with official recognizition) I can bring up other examples as well to help. I also feel that instead of posters here getting into a revert war with Cool Cat over a "totally disputed" tag, a compromise could be to just add the NPOV tag the article had earlier, to address the issues that others still have with the article. If nobody else wants to add it back, I can, although my intention isn't to get into an editing dispute with anyone. Shelby28 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this issue, but please take care not to insult each other.--Shanel 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Define what you mean by "50-50 coverage". You are welcome to ignore me however you should no longer be reverting me then. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that the {{neutrality}} tag should be readded. I made some suggestions earlier and even went through and neutralised the article somewhat but most of the suggestions were ignored. Here are five glaring examples:

A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted its authenticity as Genocide.
Over the next 15 years the Armenians began to feel that perhaps they might one day be free from the weakening rule of the Ottoman government.
Some records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in these activities themselves.
Enver Pasha's response to his crushing defeat at the Battle of Sarikamish was, in part, to blame the Armenians.
Ottoman forces attacked the city and bombarded it with artillery but the Armenians held out.

Who says it is growing?
Come on, can you really see nothing wrong with that?
Some records say something like... Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
His defeat was objectively crushing? Who describes it as such?
Held out is POV wording. "The allied forces attacked Berlin and submitted it to aerial bombardment, but the Germans held out"

- FrancisTyers 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1-It is a constatation. [10]

2-I have a problem with this statment myself, do you have a suggestion?

3-I will change that one and give it a more NPOV tone and add a footnote to it.

4-I have not added this one, but I'd qualify it crushing myself, and it is qualified as such. [11]

5-As far as I am concerned this part can go.

Thanks, this was the kind of answers I was waiting. Like I said previously, I have no opinion about if the POV tage should be added back or not, I just opposed to justifications like those brought recently. Fad (ix) 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) When these are done I'll see if I can find some more. - FrancisTyers 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize Francis' edit wasn't added. Fadix, why don't we do that? The "crushing" or a similar adjective can be sourced, or qualified as "what is considered as crushing". A POV tag is quite damaging, and after these suggestions are incorporated, I see no reason to keep it.--TigranTheGreat 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed Francis' five points in the latest version. I have:

Simply stated the number of countries.
Modified that statement as best I could.
This was difficult, but I hope the change is satisfactory.
Substituted "crushing defeat" for "decisively defeated".
I just changed that for the word "resisted" - it's clear they "held out".

So I hope that has addressed most, if not all, of your concerns, Francis. John Smith's 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

FT's points seem valid and should be looked into. However that does NOT mean the tag should be put back in. As I have pointed out, if every article that needed sorting out/was disputed had a NPOV tag we wouldn't get anywhere. If this page had stayed as it is for months I could understand. However given that certain issues have only just been raised, I think that it is fair to give us all time to address those issues. John Smith's 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actualy no, there is clear pov and factual inacuracies. Is there any body in this discussion suggesting that the article is indeed neutral? I do not see it neutral and untill at least a peer review or FAC process identifies the article as neutral I do not see why article should not be taged. It is not a lie article isnt neutral. Simply the tag states that. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On a second though FAC would be the only way. If fac concers do not include neutrality then we can conclude "the article is neutral". Any article with biased information is tagged with npov or totaly disputed so as to seek attention of wikipedia editors to neutrolised. What else is the point of the tags aside from identifying problematic articles such as this one? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the admins would be happy for us to use the candidature process to just see whether it is regarded as neutral or not. Give us time to address these points - just have patience. John Smith's 03:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? The FAC process involves the best wikipedia editors, their views and comments are valuable. Not just about neutrality. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems

I have identified some of the problems I see in this article. This is at a glance. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

According to what source are these images are related to armenian genocide
Who suggests that the corpses are of Armenian ethnicity.
Where are the images from? Who had taken them? What is the copyright status?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscrite collection of information.

Why is "Orhan Pamuk" any relevant to this topic? He is neither a historian, nor is he a notable researcher. If however he is indeed relevant, can someone please explain.
Notes section is hard/imposible to follow as on average notes are entier paragraphs/pages...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I must check if Elie Weisile is referenced in the Holocaust article then...obviously the issue is not weather Pamuk is a historian or such - it is the fact that a notable Turkish personage such as himself was indited under a Turkish law that makes uttering such admitences a "Threat to the Turkish State" and punishible by imprisonment...and this is just the tip of the iceburg - where Turkish public schools teach genocide denial and false history and require all student sot write an essay denying the Armenian Genocide before they can graduate...so yeah - i would say that these things - include the incident with Pamuk - which is one of several realted prosecutions BTW - is entirely relevant...that you somehow have the capacity to understand such things is no reason to hold mthe article hostage. --THOTH 04:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There are lot of other notable people with tens of quotes opposing the genocide thesis. This (Quotes from notable people) may be fine in wikiquote, it is inaproporate here. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscrite collection of information.

Maybe the Turkish version is the truth, again you are expecting me and anybody reading this to accept "armenian genocide" as "truth". You cannot disgard the opposing pov like that. If Orhan Pamuk does not show insight to the events of 1919 why is he a part of this artilce?

I have the capacity thank you. And I cannot hold an article hostage. I am not the one dictating the article. My edits het reverted by the minute after all... Please be civil

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well as long as we are speculating - by stating something that has no factual basis of support - then why don't we speculate that maybe David Irving has it right and we should make sure to include his perspective on the Holocaust and give it equal time...or maybe we should include the "flat earth" thesis in the article on earth geography - or make sure we allow equal time for those who content that the moon is made of cheese. --THOTH 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Obvious POV

"Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide" - Dont expect the reader to assume "armenian genocide" as a fact.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To not do so - to not accept the Armenian Genocide as a genocide and to not accept the overwhelmingly corraborated acounts that prove it as such is just ignoring the truth and would be wrong. BTW - the proper term for this is denial...Oh and BTW - we have been here before...you may recall the posts that include the definitions of such, the affirmations by the International Association of Genocide scholars and oh BTW the FACT that Raplph Lemkin specifically coined the term to describe what before had no name - and the mass murders and destruction of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire of 1915 was the catalyst for such. Do you dispute any of these contentions? If so then I claim you are setting an unreachable standard for truth - and thus we must slap a POV/disputed not proven fact on the Holocaust article and just about every other historical article. So are we ready to do this and apply the standards equally to all articles? [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)] --THOTH 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No "denial" is pov. We have been here before and a fix hasnt still happened yes. There is no such thing as "truth" and wikipedia does not exists for "truth". The topic is contraversial and framing the other side as "denialists" is unnaceptable. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have been here before - and then - as well as now - it is aparent that you are here to do anything in your power to prevent the truth of the Armenian Genocide from being presented. We have posted and referenced more then sufficient official positions (from organizations such as the International Organization of Genocide Scholars and others) and cited specific scholarly works and mentioned the overwhelming eyewitness documentary evidence - including the observations of the Germans operating within the Ottoman Empire during this period - that uncategorically prove that what was done to the Armenian by the Ottoman Turks during this period was indeed a genocide. So will you just get over it already. Denial of genocide is a crime in some places...and you are a denier. Anyone who denys that there was an Armenian Genocide is just plain wrong - either through ignorance - either willful or otherwise - or because of deliberate special agenda. Denial - in general - and concerning the Armenian Genocide in specific is a known thing. It is not POV - it is also factual. There is no legitimate position - none whatsoever - that includes denial of the Armenian Genocide. Including such positions - other then referencing them as denial and other then discussing the merits - or lack therof concerning specific points being made - is doing an incredible diservice to truth and accuracy and is giveing a platform to denialists. I have stated before that I think the article as written has great faults and I am in favor of presenting a broader picture of the Armenian genocide which puts it in context with surounding events and that I believe more explanation concerning the causes of the Genocide and the motivations of those who enacted it is in order. But I simply cannot accept that denial of the Armenian Genocide is a legitimate perspective and that such contentions should be given a platform in articles such as this. I need to check the article on Christianity to see if the Aetheist viewpoint is given equal time. If so perhaps indeed I do not understand what Wikipedia is hoping to accomplish here. --THOTH 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you THOTH do you ever edit article space? According to statistics you only made 5 edits total. All went to Armenian Genocide article on may 2005. You also had 278 posts on this very page. Instead of talking to people all the time, I encourage you to be bold and make edits. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot contribut to this article a maner to my likeing because the manner in whcih the article is composed and how it approaches the subject disagrees from my own perspective to the degree that I find it most difficult to just add to (rather then submitting a total re-write). I have proposed a partial outline for how the article could be re-worked - but aprently no one other then myself is interested. So I see my contributions are to participate in the talk page in hope of injecting some sanity and to better educate participants and readers concerning the facts and concerning a broad perspective of understanding of these events and their relevance. I think my contributions here are indeed worthwhile - unlike yours whcih I see as only being obstructionist and with a purpose to derail the article in its entirety. --THOTH 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me - as an outsider - that the sections considered most POV are 'The Position Taken By Turkish Authorities' and 'Stance Taken by Turkish Intellectuals'. If we are to resolve this dispute, then, can we first discuss if there are any problems in this article outside of those two bits? If there are, then these can probably be sorted first before tackling any remaining issues in the controversial sections. Robdurbar 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's decision to add a "NPOV" dispute tag to this article

Cool Cat, FrancisTyers and Shelby28 all seem to agree that there are legitimate grounds to dispute the neutrality of parts of this article. While there are those who dispute this, I think it would be straining a bit to deny that there is a legitimate dispute here and that the reasonable objections should be settled by consensus before it is removed. This requires careful thought and flexibility on all sides. Cool Cat has listed some legitimate points and they should be addressed reasonably and not dismissed outright.

I am going to insert a "NPOV" tag. In doing so I'd like to draw attention to the following principle which was adopted recently by the arbitration committee in the Rajput case:

Intervention

When a user, especially a previously uninvolved administrator, attempts to intervene in a dispute, requesting sources for disputed facts, removing unsourced information, adding {{fact}} templates and making other reasonable attempts to end the dispute and mobilize user's cooperation in the creation of a verifiable NPOV article, it is not acceptable to simply revert them and treat them as another disputant.

Thanks everybody in advance for playing nice together and working to make the internet not suck. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All fine and good - but what you do not seem at all to appreciate is that for certain Turks and those wedded to the Turkish denialist position - there will never be any acceptable presentations to the Armenian Genocide - the fact that they are even objecting to the classification of such as a genocide is most tellign here. We have presented more then enough evidence on these talk pages to make the categoriczation of these events as genopcide indisputable - yet they still dispute and discount these most highly regarded sources. Likewise - to assert that the denialist position merits equal time is absurd - and that is the gist of the claim of NPOV. Otherwise the specific objectins that I have read here of late do not amont to a true assertion of NPOV - they are more just semantics. So really now - is the position which denies the Armenian Genocide as a genocide truly legitimate (other then explaining who claims such and why?) Outside of such being denial of genocide is there really any argument here? Even if the Turkish claims of Armenian "gangs" killing Turks were true as presented (and they are not) - would this still truly superceed all evidence from eyewitnesses and all scholarly documentaion of such that proves - beyond a doubt that the Armenian Genocide indeed took place and that it was indeed a genocide? I think not. There is no legitimate basis for this article to be termed NPOV. Neither is there any legitimate basis for the Turkish government's shameful denilaist postion to be included at anything approaching equal weight with the known and near universally accepted position that the Armenain genocide did indeed occur and that it was clearly a genocide. And this is not the Armenian position - but the postion of scholars and academics and most governments worldwide (the latter perhaps apolitical issue more then one of fact - but a legitimate issue for discussion/presntation in a Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide). There is no more room to debate this or to include denial in this article as there would be in an article concerning the Holocaust or any other commonly accepted historical event. The only difference is the organized and government sponsoored campaign of denial that has adherents (that are overwhemingly Turkish or Turkish related). In providing these denialist equal time - we are doing a great diservice to not only Wikipedia - but humanity. And by treating this article differnt then the others - where crackpot denilaits and haters are not allowed to disrupt and distort the truth - we are allowing the deniers to suceed in their mission and we are giving these ugly forces a platform to present their distorted and distasteful views. I think this is a grave mistake. --THOTH 15:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with THOTH. There are changes to be made, but I doubt that some people will ever be satisfied with this article until it is watered down to the point where a reader might actually think the Turks did nothing wrong and it was all the Armenians' fault. This article should not be turned inside out just to placate denialists and Turkish nationalists, just as the Nanking Massacre article should not be full of Japanese denial and the Holocaust page have half devoted to the rants of Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Tony, you and the other staff are going to have to accept that this page is about discussing the Armenian Genocide and not giving room to people trying to disprove it. Otherwise the article will never become stable. Dealing with Francis' points is one thing, suiting CoolCat is another. John Smith's 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well its clear (by the reasoning of those here who deny the Armenian genocide) that the Holocaust Article must now be stamped with a NPOV tag - even a head of state is questioning it (and so do a great many others - in coolcat's word - how do we know that their version is not the "truth"? Of course it should get equal time...no?. And certainly to affirm the Holocaust is a POV is it not?

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran, whose president has denied the Holocaust, said Sunday it would hold a conference to examine the scientific evidence concerning Nazi Germany's extermination of 6 million Jews.

--THOTH 15:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I will eventualy be "satisfied". The point is not my satisfaction though. Article has clear bias. Still people are talking about "Turkish denialist position" instead of perhaps "turkish position" so there is definately lots of work to be done. You are suggesting "events as genopcide indisputable", I have a turkish goverment and some scholars disputing that.

Nothing is indisputable on contraversial articles. The very basic of contravercies is that there is a dispute. You are saying there is no dispute while the main dispute is the clasification of the incident as genocide. Stunning.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

David Irving - a noted recognized historical expert of the Nazi period vigorously disputes the Holocaust contention (as do a great many others). Heads of State such as in Iran do such as well. These views are equally as valid (or not) as those who dispute the Armenian Genocide and if it is Wikipedia's position that the Turkish denialist concerning the Armenian Genocide be treated with equal weight to the truth - contrary to all evidence - then these deserve equal time as well. I personally do not deny the Holocaust BTW - quite the contrary - what I am highlighting here is the absurdity of your position. --THOTH 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt - International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) Report Prepared for TARC February 10, 2003

The Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to Events which Occurred During the Early Twentieth Century

Legal Analysis Prepared for the International Center for Transitional Justice

The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), formed July 9, 2001, by Turkish and Armenian civil society representatives, requested that the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) facilitate an independent legal study on the applicability of the 1948 Genocide Convention to events which occurred during the early twentieth century. On February 4, 2003, ICTJ provided TARC the following analysis on the subject. This analysis was issued to the public by TARC on February 10, 2003.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF LEGAL CONCLUSIONS (conclusion only)

...the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them.

--THOTH 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Association of Genocide Scholars - June 13, 1997 - Resolution

...reaffirms that the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters.

--THOTH 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

United Nations Permanent Peoples' Tribunal - April 16, 1984 - Verdict of the Tribunal

III. The Evidence - The Tribunal is invited to pronounce judgement on the charge of genocide brought on the basis of the events of 1915-1915. The Tribunal considers that the facts presented above are established on the basis of substantial and concordant evidence. This evidence has been produced and analyzed in the various reports heard by the Tribunal, to which numerous documents have been submitted.

the Tribunal hereby finds that:

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

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

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

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

--THOTH 17:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(exerpt of correspondence from Ambasador Morganthau - From Constantinople - Dated July 16, 1915 to: Secretary of State, Washington. ... Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.

also... German Ambassador, Baron Hans von Wangenheim wrote on 7 July 1915 - “the (Ottoman Turkish) government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire” (Wilhelmstrasse archives).

--THOTH 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have people disputing all that. There are people disputing theory of evolution as well... Your point? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You have people? Are they in your employ? I don't understand either your statment or your point. OK - some people dispute the Theory of Evolution...most because they have a particular agenda that has no factual basis and they fail to understand the workings of science. So are you argueing that those who dispute Evolution should be given equal consideration in a scientific article presenting the tenents of the Theory of Evolution? Are you likewise saying that the observations and reporting of collected observations and such by the American and Gereman Ambassadors were falsified? This is too rich. FYI - both the German and American archives have thousands of documents (from eywitnesses) that attest to the validity of the genocide claim and dispute the Turkish contentions of any Armenian rebellion or justification for such actions. --THOTH 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Taner Akcam makes some great points concering the acceptance of the Armenian Genocide as great massacres and such (of course this is prior to the term of genocide having been invented)...including by Republic of Turkey founder Kemal Ataturk BTW -

"In December 1918, a Commission was formed upon the initiative of the Interior Minister Mustafa Arif (Deymer). The Commission worked about 3 months, and the conclusions were made public by the Interior Minister of that time, Cemal Bey, on 14 March 1919. According to the Ottoman State Archives, the number of Armenians slain during the period 1914-1918 is 800,000 (Vakit, Alemdar, Ikdam, 15 March 1919). The fact that during the deportations and killings 800,000 Armenians lost their lives is a well-known and repeated fact by everybody during an entire period of time. At the head of people using that figure is Mustafa Kemal [Atatürk]: Mustafa Kemal said during a meeting with the American General Harbord that 800,000 Armenians were killed. (Memories of Rauf Orbay, "Our Recent History", Vol. 3, Pg, 179)

the second source is a book published in 1928 by the General Staff about the losses of World War I. The book, published by Lieutenant-Colonel Nihat, is the translation of a French book, and the figures related with Turkey are provided after modification and correction. According to the numbers given by the General Staff "800,000 Armenians and 200,000 Greeks died because of massacres and deportations, or in labor battalions" during the First World War. Y. H. Bayur, who transmits this information, says that "these figures should also be considered correct by our official sources". (Y. H. Bayur, The History of Reforms, Vol. III, Part IV, pg. 787). It may look amazing, but the reality that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was accepted by everybody having lived in that period, and was never the object of an argument. Of course the word soykirim [genocide] (being a term belonging to the post World War II period) was not used in those days. To describe what had happened in 1915, words such as "katliam" [massacre], "taktil" [killings], "teb'id" [taking away, expulsion, expelling], "kital" [massacre] were used. Mustafa Kemal has dozens of speeches in which he defines the treatments reserved to Armenians as "cowardice", or "barbarity", and names these treatments "massacre". In September 1919, the American General Harbord, who visited Mustafa Kemal in Sivas, says "he, too, disapproved the Armenian Massacre." According to Mustafa Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power" (see the above mentioned work of Rauf Orbay.) Again during the same period, in an interview given to the USA Radio Newspaper, he says, "we have no expansionist plan...we can give the guarantee that there will be no new barbaric deeds against Armenians." (Bilal Simsir, British Documents on Atatürk, Vol. I, pg. 171, Ankara 1973) In a telegram sent to Kazim Karabekir on 6 May 1920, he directs Kazim Karabekir to abstain from any initiative, meaning a new "Armenian Massacre". (Kazim Karabekir, Our War of Liberation, pg. 707) In a speech made on 24 April, he describes the treatments reserved to Armenians in 1915 as "cowardly". (Atatürk's speeches in public and secret sessions of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, vol. I, pg. 59), etc.

Not only there was no argument of the fact that the treatments of Armenians was a massacre, on the contrary it was openly defended that the guilty persons should be punished. There were a series of correspondences between the Cabinet of Ali Riza Pasha and Mustafa Kemal in September 1919. The War Minister Cemal conducting the correspondence on behalf of the Istanbul Government required that Mustafa Kemal make a declaration stating "the perpetrators of all sorts of crimes committed during the war will not avoid legal punishments." In his reply, Mustafa Kemal says, "our most special desires are the exposure and punishment of misgovernment during the war, to understand that in our fatherland the responsibility is shared equally by the ordinary people and the leaders alike

...It is possible to quote examples over several pages. What I want to explain is the following: the fact that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was not even the subject of an argument in any manner from the viewpoint of the actors of that period, with Mustafa Kemal at their head."

--THOTH 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is posible, however there is a thesis opposing all above claims. No one is suggesting the genocide theisis has no basis. There is a thesis opposing it and as ridiclous it might be to you, is still wikipedia material.

It is pov pushing if your article is one sided and everything else is "denial of facts"/"lies".

From what I can see from your comments there (the very end), certainly is systematic bias here as if its a birth given right.

THOTH btw please do not copy paste books here. This discussion is about the NPOV tag and that there is bisas on the article in question. Biased statements such as the fact that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was not even the subject of an argument in any manner from the viewpoint of the actors of that period, with Mustafa Kemal at their head supports the necesity of the tag...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat - you and your objections are laughable. What I posted was a Quote from Taner Ackam who has written a number of well sourced books on this subject and indeed he has provided sources for the quotes. I am not posting any kind of book - in fact I have made effort to only post relevant exceprts that directly address your contention that there is some kind of reasonable doubt concerning the claim of genocide in the case of the Armenians. In fact there is no reasonable claim to the contrary. The evidence is overwhelming and is overwhelmingly accepted. The Turkish official position and that of the handful of scholars who support it has been refuted point by point and has been shown to be entirely specious. The citiations I have provided here and before make this most clear. The evidence of genocide is overwhelming and the pattern and specifics of the Turkish denial mimic almost to the point the denial of the Holocaust. Wikipedia should not be a forum to legitimize these false and misleading claims. The Armenian Genocide is well proven - is corraborated by an incredible amount of documented evidence - and its factualness is beyond question. So give it up already - you are looking increasingly shrill and trollish. --THOTH 21:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should 3 people's (Cool Cat, FrancisTyers and Shanal) wrong opinion about the subject justify adding {{npov}} ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Սահակ (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 February 2006.

That sentence you just uttered is the exact reason why you and some other people should not touch this article with a 60 feet pole. If you have a bias, either try to overcome it or don't touch the article to enforce the NPOV policies. MonsterOfTheLake 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your decision, Tony. Your NPOV tag was immediately deleted, however, so I'll revert it back to your version, with the hopes that this won't become a reverting war. Shelby28 17:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers arguments are relevent, I have myself requested the article being reviewed for improvment in more than one occasion by neutral sides, and this is one of the reasons I have not voted in the poll, because I am very involved in the article and I can miss POV. Fad (ix) 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are people idnetifying pov all the time getting reverted like no tomorow. Some people were reverted for spelling corrections. Also what happened to my edit: Alternative name to the incident is "Armenian Reloaction" you agreed to put it into the article... It aint there no more... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "Armenian relocation" is entirely unacceptable and inappropriate. It would be like insisting that the Holcaust be given an alternative name such as "Jewish internment" to placate sensitivities of the Nazis. Everyone knows and acknowledges that their was a government sponsored campaign to eliminate both Jews and Armenians in their respective GENOCIDES. Any attempt to dillute this truth is denialism and is a falsehood. Wikipedia should not be promoting clearly false and misleading agendas. Of course the article on the Armenian genocide should reference and give examples or a link to a seperate (more detailed) article concerning Armenian Genocide denial (and perhaps efforts on the part of Armenians and by Holocaust and genocide scholars to achieve recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the face of the deliberate campaign of denial sponsiored by the Turkish Government). It is only in this light that the outright denial of the Armenian Genocide is legitimate as presentation material. As the denial campaign is so active and persistent it deserves acknowledgement and treatment. The history of this denial and of the specific positions and efforts by the Turkish Government and supporting scholars are legitimate subjects for presentation - however the specific refuted and irrelevant claims of the denialists do not deserve to be presented as a legitimate POV with any weight as a counter to the accepted facts of the Armenian Genocide. The denialist claims are as repugnent and fringe - from an academic and historical perspective - as any concerning the Holocaust. The Armenian Genocide is fact and there is nothing but heresay and misinformation to counter it. The essential elements of the known historical events and actions commited by the Ottoman Turks against their Armenian minority population clearly meet all definitions of genocide. This is proven again and again. We need to establish this as such here and move on to issues concerning the specific content of the article. There is no legitimate perspective that includes the view the Genocide of the Armenians did not happen. The evidence is crystal clear on this. --THOTH 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of "Turks"

I feel a bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "Turks" in this sentence - "In August the Russian army left and the Turks re-occupied Van." and throughout the article.

Here we have the "Russian army", but the "Turks" not the "Turkish army" or the "Turkish government". In the WP:MOS, it states "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth."

My preference would be for there be no reference to "Turks" except in the case of "Young Turks", I may be wrong and people may have different opinions. Just drawing it to our collective attention. - FrancisTyers 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Ottoman army? -Fadix

Yes, that seems to be a good compromise for this one. How about the other instances of "Turks"? - FrancisTyers 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use the word "Turks" elsewhere, as it's used to describe ethnicity. You can't substitute any other word in that context. John Smith's 20:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list:

With Russian forces approaching Lake Van, the regional administrator ordered the execution of five Armenian leaders and a revolt resulted in Van on April 20,[1] against the Turks and in favor of the Russians (this according to Turkish sources)
Then in September the Russians forced the Turks out of Van for the second time.
In his other research, he maintains that over 500,000 Turks were killed by Armenians.
While the Turkish government now publicizes those figures of Turks allegedly being killed by Armenians

Ottoman government
Ottoman army

The others are OK by me unless anyone else has any objections. - FrancisTyers 20:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1 and 2 can be changed, but 3 & 4 should stay as Turks I think. I doubt very much that 500,000 Turkish soldiers were killed unless that is what the people are implying there. John Smith's 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I meant, I guess I wasn't clear enough :) - FrancisTyers 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see it now. Sorry ;) John Smith's 22:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to inform the users here that Coolcat added the tag for deletion on two pictures taken during the war by Russian personals

Tony, maybe you should check that up and confirm if in fact Coolcat is disrupting again when there is no possible copyright violation for pictures taken before the Soviet Union signed the convention. Those pictures as I have already clarified were from Mus, taken by the Russians and they are not copyrighted neither can they be copyrightable. As it is obvious, even if the pictures could be under the convention they dates at least of 85 years. The source has already been provided in this very same forum.. Fad (ix) 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is RIDICILOUS, Coolcat placed it to all the pictures. Such pictures can NOT be copyrightable, they have been taken 85-90 years ago.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) .

~~US copyright law requires 100 years.~~ If they are taken by russian personel then you should be able to provide us with evidence to that end. Also what makes russian personel taking photos PD? I generaly dont do copyright tagging myself but I guess I will this time. Most Images link to another wiki with no copyright information there either. You are not exempt from copyright procedures. While you are informing the public, I already listed the images on an earlier post. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Which legislation do we apply, is there any proof the simages were taken by russian personel or is it related to Armenian Genocide... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Images could be: Stolen from archives (coppied without permision (photocopy) or taken away). Archives copyrights extend great time spawns unless the country releases them to PD. Millitary archives however are not generaly as countries often want to regulate information flow. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect anyone to assume good faith after this? The picture is dated in 1918, and as I have already specified its source is: Armjanskij Central’nyj Komitet (Izd.): ,Al’bom’’ armjan’-bežencev’’. Tiflis (um 1918) There is no copyright on this picture we have discussed this with Cansin, and John Smith was there as well. In fact, both pictures I have loaded are two shut of the same scene. This is one example why I can not assume good faith with you, you come in and place the tag by ignoring the sourcing of those pictures and there can be no other interpretation than, you wanting to scrap all the pictures from the article. And before you start asking for "proves" that those pictures I have uploaded of Armenian burned near Mus are in fact Armenians, maybe you should read the footnotes of the article, S. S. McClure report the burnings of Mus, as well as The Ottoman commander of the third army affidavit containing this information about the burning near Mus. And as I have added, I opposed to the inclusion of the top picture on the article and I have already removed it in the past before it was reverted back. Also, know that if you remove the rest of the pictures(for the most part taken by Germans) I will replace them with sourced mass graves taken from the camps which are much worst than that. I wonder how you will request authentification that they are in fact Armenians, it will be hard for you to request that when most in the camps were Armenians and the rest Assyrians or Greeks etc. Fad (ix) 18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not recall you assuming good faith either. With my first comment here after ages you said you were ignoring me... Please don't lecture me about good faith.

I see no evidence of copyright data on images. I do not care of your private debates with others. I need information regarding copyrights on the image description pages. Who took it (if applicable), where were they taken, and why is it in the public domain... You are welcome to asume anything you wish. Please provide copyright info in 7 days in image description pages.

Try deleting them and it will most certainly go on another arbitration cases Coolcat. Those pictures are on public domain; the exibitation in Germany of Wegners pictures and the affair with Sybil Stevens who is the daughter of Wegner clearly shows this. Those pictures(excluding the one I have sourced) are in the Wegner Collection, and those that are not are either in the Deutches Literaturarchiv and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum who has a collection of those pictures. They are CLEARLY in public domain and open to circulation. Various historical official websites don't even include the sources or authors. Example: http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin04/imag0386.jpg

You can replace them with sourced mass graves. If they are indeed PD and are related to the incident. Please however upload to commons so images can be used interwiki.

his assumes that the pictures will get deleted.

So the dead could be Assyrians and Greeks and not Armenians... Hence inaproporate to be in this article to begin with... How do we know they aren't Turks or Kurds or some other ethnic minority? How do I know that "starved armenian child and mother" are Armenians and not jews from The Holocaust or some other similar incident and hence subject to copyrights of a diferent era.

Here, the old Coolcat is back, with the same crap. Who proves that all the bodies in the Holocaust exibition pictures are Jews and not Gypsies? Why am I not surprised by Coolcat stupid rhetorics? There is no Kurds or Turks in those pictures for the simple reason that they come from deportation cites or the camps. Were there Kurds and Turks deported by the Ittihadist government in those camps? If so, be glad to present any records that support that. The victims were classified as Armenians, and the pictures came from deportation cites. Of course there were among them Assyruans and Greeks, as there were Gypsies and war prisoners in the concentration camps and were also killed. But something is clear, and it is that the large majority were Armenians. As for the BS about what proves they are not Holocaust pictures. Visit the Holocaust Museum section on Armenian documentation and pictures, don't you think that they would have classified them as Jews if they were?

It is very easy to make a new image look old. Firstly I need authenticity so we can begin to argue about copyrights. Images could be fakes if not sourced properly.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

BS, yeh right, you can find those pictures in most exibitions, including those of the Holocaust museum, you can make up all the possibilities to question the authenticity of those pictures, but facts are that they were mostly taken by Germans who were Ottoman allies.

WHoever you are please be civil and also sign your post. If it is that easy to prove these are from the armenian genocide instead of screaming at me, provide that info.

Cat, I sense that you are finding reasons to cause trouble with these photos. Tell you what, if you want to prove that you are acting on good faith go onto the internet and find us a picture from an Armenian Massacre website that you are satisfied with. Because if you don't, you can claim anything is unverifiable. And if we take that line, every photo on wiki would have to be deleted. John Smith's 19:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot copy paste like that. Those would not be PD. This copyright procedure applies to all images. Only difference is you guys are causing a ruckus over it. If I wanted to get rid of images in bad faith I could have done so secretly. I do not have to notify people uploading the images, nor do I have to inform the generalpublic here. I am trying to "delete" the images when everyone is looking over them hence my bargin is someone will come up with proper copyright information. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

What changes are necessary to this article to make it "neutral"?

Thanks, -Sahak

I have just reread the article in its entirety. I don't see how anyone can legitimatly claim that the article is POV or non-nuetral. In fact I think it more then covers the essential claims and elements of Turkish denial of the Genocide. In a longer article (perhaps in the article being proposed specifically concerning Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide - I would expect to see more concerning the evolution of the Turkish position from outright denial that it ever happened to the more current position that while Armenains may have died/suffered so did Turks - etc. Additionally I would expect to see more coverage of the major proponents of the official Turkish "position" and major incidents - such as the Heath Lowery affair - as well as other specifics - such as Turkish funding of Turkish Studies overseas and the role of those recieving these funds in promoting Genocide denial (and the pre-conditions Turkey attaches to their financial aid) etc warrent coverage. The role of the Turkish Government in stifling internal debate and access to information should also be presented - such things as laws forbidding affirmation of the Genocide and attempts on the part of the Turkish judiciary to enforce such as well as basic information concerning how the Turkish public educational system enforces teaching of its specific view denying that a genocide even occured and outright blaming the victims of such (Armenians) for inciting the violence. As for the current article itself - while it contains much accurate and useful information - it lacks a clear flow for the presentation and it is difficult to really understand the relevance and impact of the information presented. I think one area that is clearly lacking in the article is a presentation of the sources of the evidence for the Genocide - the corraborated eywitness accounts and the role of foreign government and missionaries stationed in the Ottoman EMpire in documenting the Genocide. I also feel that the historical context of the Genocide - some of the "why" questions has not been sufficietnly addressed. Likewise the major actors and the variety of means of killing are not clearly presented IMO. In general I find the presentation of the article to be sloppy and somewhat unproffesional and in need of much improvement. However I am reluctant to take on this task without some kind of agreed mandate to do such. I would not be satisfied making only minor changes - bandages on a flawed product. I think a total re-write and reorganization is in order. I disagree with much of the current article's emphasis. The Pamuk incident for instance fails to convey the important underlying issues surounding his indictal and the pop culture section regarding System of a Down is so down in the noise in terms of relvancy and importance I can't see it being included when there is far more relavent information missing. I think a timeline is vital for this as well - with major events and proclimations clearly highlighted - such as passing of the abandoned property act. etc Anyway this is my take on the article. --THOTH 22:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quit it Thoth, I have enought of it, your undertanding of NPOV policy is as weak as Coolcats. I already requested you to stop criticizing the article and starting to present concrete improvements. The last time you have suggested and have written a text it was totally POV. For the last time, Wikipedia present positions, not established facts. Fad (ix) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

? Face it the article is very poorly organized and written. I would love to contribute but unfortunatly my standards and approach are such that I cannot just do a sentance here or there - I am a conceptual thinker and I approach things in big chunks - thus it is nearly impossible for me to even concern myself with the minutia unless I am crafting an entire picture - it is just my way. I have however suggested topics which need to be better covered and I have provided some words which could potentially be used. However most of what I would do is reorganize and tell the story of what occured in a more coherent fashion with proper emphasis and background. I also feel that the weasle words used in the article dilute the message and make the article less then useful or even understandable. As written it is very difficult to gain any real understanding of the Genocide - in fact one can hardly even tell what a genocide is by the presentation and it certainly lacks real historical context - such as just why were Armenians victimized and why were the Turks driven to being so radical. Anyway - this article and the discussions here are so far from being anywhere close to approaching the issue correctly I really have little hope - but at least I can contribute to keep things honest and not let deniers get away with pushing BS without challenge. In the meantime I'll try not to cringe too much when I read the article - but unfortunatly - even though it does have much good information - the extremely amature and discoherent manner that it is arrranged and presented makes me do so...additionally, in my view there is a great deal of important fact and emphasis missing. --THOTH 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the neutrality dispute is over the number of deaths somewhere. I'm not too sure but since there's constant revert wars over this, I'm inclined to keep the POV tag. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Er? Did you read the article? It doesn't provide any definitive number, I have changed that myself a long time ago. I have created an entry about the losses from every positions and I still need help getting that reviewed, I already requested but until now just one user has reviewed it. Fad (ix) 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough. I for example don't believe 6 million jews died during WWII, I believe the number was far less and that numbers don't really matter. Should I add the tag to the Holoaust article?--Eupator 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Fadix & Eupator here. User Jester you really haven't read the article have you? Nor do you have any clue about anything concerning the Armenain Genocide or its denial. The 1.5 million claim - that is used by so many - first apeared in official (secret) German correspondence based on reports from Germans throughout Anatolia, and was essentially verified by other sources. Sure it is a rough number - but it seems that it was essentially accurate...though often one sees a variety of numbers from different reports and such - that there are differences arise for several reasons. First there is the issue of time period coverage - stricltly 1915/1916 or expanded from this (1914-1923 for instance). There are also issues regarding the geographical coverage of reported figures - just pertaining to numbers of Armenians in the Eastern provinces or do they pertain to Anatolia wide or do they even include Armenians who were killed in areas that are now in Iraq, Iran and in what is now Armenia itself - etc. Other confusion is attribution - do figures represent those directly killed or all those Armenians who died as a (direct or indirect) result of being uprooted, forced marched and exposed to the elements and diseases arising from proximity to the great numbers of dead bodies that were just left lying around in places and of course from starvation - as Armenians were givenlittle food and in fact often Turks were punished for feeding Armenians - etc I tend to think that based on likely population figures (accepted by foreign sources) the number who can be directly attributed to being killed by the Turks (or Kurds acting on behalf of the Turks etc) is at least 1.2 million (for the primary periodof the Genocide 1915-1916 for the entire region of Anatolia and areas under direct ottoman control. It seems that based on Ottoman records at least 800,000 (mostly women, children and elderly) were killed as a direct result of "deportation" with the rest likely being killed by other methods (firing squad or just mass slaughter etc) or otherwise dying from "deportation"/Genocide related conditions(and even some of course to general wartime conditions as the Turks like to claim...). Fadix has written an article (referenced in the main article) which speaks to various estimates of Armenian population numbers which could serve as a basis for understanding some of the numbers and percentages of population we are talkign about. In any event - as it is presented in the article - the number of deaths is not at all POV - this isn't the point of the dispute at all as far as I can see - though perhaps the number of Turks suposedly killed by Armenians - where some Turkish sources claim that 500,000 and now I am even seeing the 1 million claim in places - that were supposedly killed by Armenians. Of course these are entirely ludicrous and unsupportable claims - unlike the Armenian figures which are supported and corroborated by numerous diverse sources and not just by one set of doctored Ottoman accounts supplemented by I don't know - complete conjecture and wild immagination...--THOTH 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

This article lacks photgraphs. More need to be added. Armin T. Wegner's as well as John Elder's photographs are a good source, not sure if they are PD or not. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/photo_wegner.html http://www.armenian-genocide.org/photo_elder.html --Eupator 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

ANI institute has censured Wegner's pictures because they do not fit for the general public viewing. When I was reffering to mass graves, this is to what I was alluding too. [12]

www.armeniapedia.org images have "www.armeniapedia.org" engraved on them (implying www.armeniapedia.org owns the copyrights but at least thats easy to doubt as it is yet another wiki...) also some images have an "all rights reserved" disclaimer. Hence are not PD. I am not sure if images with explicit statement of "all rights reserved" can be presented as "fair use".

Right clicking on the www.armenian-genocide.org site returns a "Copying any materials posted on the ANI web site is strictly prohibited.", I do not believe we can even use those images under fair use as it appears. They also have a copyright notice:

"COPYING-AND-PASTING" OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON ANI'S WEB SITE TO YOUR WEB SITE, INCLUDING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MAPS, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY PORTION OF ANY MAP, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONSTITUTING ANY PART OF ANI'S WEB SITE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED (See Publishing below for further information).

I really dont want to use their images... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Was looking at [13] and I am not impressed with this wiki. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A copyright value is on the compressed picture not the originals. Those pictures have been published way before 1968, and under law the copyrught holds for 28 years unless it is renewed by the author, it is not, while the originals are now under the pocession of an organization, the previously published copies are not copyrightable. But so that you stop this wave, I have requested Raffi to get the same permission for Wikipedia. But I will replace the pictures by the mass graves. Fad (ix) 17:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If the owner is russian army it would have been renewed. I need sources and information regarding copyright just like any other images on wikipedia. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

tallarmeniantale website added back

The exclusion of this website has been discussed on this very same talk page in the past. The author is registered under a proxy and was a user of Wikipedia who uses quotes that do not exist(and I have already provided various such examples here when discussing with him), he slanders scholars personally in his website and the site contains racistic remarks as it has already been shown there. If it is permitted to have the same quality webpages in other Wikipedia articles, I will add this link back. There are already other racistic sites like armenianreality.com, which would have been removed right away if it was inserted in any other Wikipedia article. Fad (ix) 17:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this type of low quality hate site has no business being listed in any way in Wikipedia - it is an insult to scholarship. --THOTH 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean by "racistic", can you give examples??? Also there is a lot of rubbish on the "supportive" section and no one seems to bring that up! 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us say that we are talking about David Irving's Institute of Historical Reveiw (or whatever silly thing he calls it) website. At every turn this site is claiming that jews were never deliberatly killed, that gas chambers were used to de-lice and that Jews who died did so because of starvation and disease and all the other reasons that were being experienced by normal Germans and the Jewish deaths were no more special then any other. Likewise the site continuosly decries eyewitness testimony as falsified and claims that the jews through their power and influence have convinced others of their contrived story. Attacks against the integrity and truthfulness of Holocaust eyewitnesses of the time and Holocaust scholars of today are shrilly made. Meanwhile all sorts of claims of German innocence and villyfing Jews by blaming them for their own (and german) misfortune are made - etc - and so on and so forht....now let me ask you - would you consider this a legitimate website to reference on the Holocaust page of Wikipedia? Or might you catagorize such a site as hateful and racist and certainly not of the quality to be considered as source material for anything serious. Please answer me this...--THOTH 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you pass a law that forbids denying the so called Armenian genocide, like many European countries have done, you make it impossible for historians to carry out the necessary research to bring things into light, and this issue risks of dragging on forever! Irrespective of your thoughts on this matter, there is a lot of debate going on as to whether the massacres constitute genocide (I dont see any such debate going on with the Holocaust deniers), the Armenians have put tremendous effort to provoke and vilify the Turks, you should maybe spend sometime just pondering through the sheer hate mail out there, it would probably take a life time to go through it. The point I am making is that the Armenians, through their aggressive behaviour have made it almost impossible to reconcile. Its not by provoking, intimidating, and, for a long while murdering Turks that they will get acceptance. On the contrary, it only embitters the other side. Furthermore, this whole debate is approached in a manner that is totally condescending to the vicitims of Armenian revolts, its as if their lives meant nothing compared to that of the Armenians. 06:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest for a moment that you consider the Armenian perspective on this issue for a moment before asking Armenians to sympathise with the Turkish one. While I can sympathise for the sufferings experienced by Turks during this period and earlier in other nearby places the issue of this article is the Armenian Genocide. I have always been one to advocate a more thorough treatment of the topic - including events and actions and such which led to the situation where the CUP/Ottomans succesfully commited a genocide against the Armenians. Regardless of the truth of the Turkish claims of Armenian insubordination (that I view as clearly being quite exaggerated and presented out of context and not in good faith) the Ottoman authorities and their agents enacted and carried out a genocidal campaign against the Armenians which suceeded in its objectives - and that is why we are here discussing and presenting this information. The evidence that supports this contention is overwhelming and irrefutable and is overwhelmingly accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians and pretty much everyone but native Turks and Turkish government sponsored researchers. This is not the "Armenian position" any more then acceptance of the Holocaust can be termed strictly a "Jewsih position". You speak of reconcilliation...how can there be reconcilliation without truth? You speak of victims of Armenian "revolts" as if Armenians started the killings, started the repression, actually had power such as the Ottoman Government and the Kurds armed by such to terrorize and slaughter masses. That some Turks were killed by Armenian bandits and/or revolutionaries at some places and at some points in time is insufficient justification for the actions taken against the Armenian population of Anatolia at large. I suggest that you yourself are improperly informed concerning the real issues and history of the period and what went on prior to 1915. Your focus on and acceptance of the CUP racist propoganda of the time that continues to be repeated and dispersed by the Turkish government and media has caused you to fail to understand realities. The Armenian Genocide is fact. I cannot make you accept this if you choose to remain ignorant. And if you choose to remain ignorant I don't see any possibility of reconcilliation. Once you are ready to acknowledge the most basic and obvious historical truths - that the Armenians were (by definition) clearly subjected to a genocide by the Ottoman Turks - and that there was and could be no sufficient justification for such a thing - then we can talk. --THOTH 07:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Its exactly this conditional reasoning of "first you acknowldege that its a genocide and then we will talk" that makes this debate so ridiculous. Its like telling a criminal that he should first acknowledge his crimes and then we can debate them with him. The genocide is not a fact, far from it, and there are plenty of reputable scholars and historians out there that question this very issue. The Armenians have through the years become so cunning in the art of intimidating those that question this issue, that its become almost impossible to approach it in an impartial manner. Its also inslulting that you trivialize the massacres commited by Armenians by making it sound that it was just a sporadic event with a few Turks killed here and there. Its again an example of the systematic dilution of the other side. I have serious doubts as to your impartiality on this issue. Armenians and Turks lived peacfully together for centuries, you cant light a fire without a match!

08:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said sir - you are obviously both ignoring the facts of the overwhelming evidence that corraborates the accounts of genocide unconditionally and you are in acceptance of the rather spurious Turkish claims that Anatolian Armenians as a group ever commited any violence or rebellioneven remotely approaching what could be considered as justification for what was done to them. And you accuse me of lack of impartiality? Ha! To you Armenian claims of Genocide - even when fully backed up by overwhelming evidence and even when fully supported by the scholarly community except in a few very notable cases of scholars with proven agendas - is only "cunning and intimidation" on the part of Armenians is a clear indication of your bias/predjudice and exactly why there is no talking with one such as you. If a neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier (such as the president of Iran - Ahmdenejad) were to demand that the "facts" be investigated first (when they are all already pretty much known) we need not speculate what the response to such a denier would be - as we can see - And the Armenians deserve no less. Your claims are spurious and are stricly the respresentation of a denialist revisionist agenda. The only difference between you and your position and that of Holocaust deniers is that in the case of Armenian Genocide denial there is a concerted Turkish government campaign which actively leads the denial. We certainly can acknowledge that. As for Turksih losses - allegedly at the hands of Armenians - of course this is a subject that should be discussed. But in the manner that you propose - as some sort of a counter to the known facts of the genocide - sorry - it does not compute (and we have presented and discussed this time and time again). I would never thik to trivialize death - and as I have said - there were times when Armenian "gangs" "bandits" and/or "revolutionaries" did act to kill soem Turks - but no where near the numbers that are often claimed by certain Turkieh sources and not largely in the time or place that directly preseeds or occurs during the period of the Armenian Genocide. Additionally - to properly discuss these killings we must also discuss the repressive measures and massacres (of Armenians - and yes also of Turks - though primarily elsewhere and caused by others - not Armenians) that preceeded the Genocide and we must present the deteriorating conditions within the Ottoman EMpire and the motivations of the Young Turk leadership and forces within Ottoman Turkish society that led to distrust and eventual villianization of Armenians. likewise we need to present the attempts by Armenians for both outside redress to force reform within the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman countereaction (ussually massacre). The push by Armenians for reforms and the rise of more radical elements/thinking by some in the Armenian community in response to the increased repression and massacre resulting from reforms imposed on the Sultan from outside powers all should be properly discussed in their context. In the end - you and all will see that although some Armenians did kill Turks - these isolated killings were used more as a pretext by a paranoid and racist CUP party with an agenda of "Turkifying" and developing a "final solution" to the "Armenian problem" then for any real military reason - etc. There was no "civil war" as the Turkish government and its supporters now claim - the Armenians were overwhelming loyal and peaceful and did not resist or even act in any way to prevent their genocide - the eyewitness evidence corraborates this. Meanwhile Armenains were not only being set upon by Kurds and by gangs of chettes composed of recent emigrees into Anatolia from outlying areas (where they had been driven out by other Christians and thus brought with them a hatred for Armenian Christins which was fanned and supported by the Ottoman Government) - no not only did Armenains have to deal with these usual depridations (all well documented) but then they were subject to an additional sweeping, wisespread adn all encompassing campaign on the part of the Ottoman Turkish Governmenet to uproot and murder them - to annhilate them as a people - and remove all traces of them from Anatolia - and this is what occured - all evidence - eyewitness at the time - thousands of accounts - all observing and depicting the same thing - and of course the evidence afterward -where all the Armenains of Anatolai now? Are they all at this mythincal "deportation" point in the Syrian desert? No - we know full well what happened to them. --THOTH 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir, only a fanatic could take the time to produce such a misguided response as yours! Its almost laughable how you portray Armenians as humble, peace loving and well intentioned and without any provocation whatsoever, the evil Ottoman Turks gratituously massacred them to satisfy their pleasures after centuries of peaceful existance! Ha! In any case it is clear to me that our opinions diverge fundamentally and nothing in this world is likely to make either of us budge. On a side note I find it ironic that on a topic where supposedly an overwhelming majority of people support the thesis of genocide that its neutrality is being questioned! 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. FYI - everything I wrote conforms to the views of genocide scholars and historians and the historical record. Elsewhere (in the archives a ways back by now) I have posted more detail concerning the various events and forces that cause Armenians to be perhaps seen as a threat and certainly villianized by the CUP/Ottoman Turkish elite and of course there is much which can be discussed here...again...however...none of it changes the fact of what did occur to the Armenians (Genocide) at the direction of the CUP/Ottoman Turks. You here are making light of these horrific events and that is not appreciated. But of course you are a genocide denier - which is indicative of your lack of empathy/compassion - so I am not surprised. Oh and yes - the "thesis of genocide" is overwhelmingly supported...that its neutrality (the presentation of such here in Wikipedia) is being questioned is more of a comment on the shameful institutionalized denial on the part of the Turks and your rabid - Turkey can do and never has done any wrong hyper nationalism and enforced ignorance then it is on the truthfulness of the Armenain Genocide and the accuracy of its portrayal here. --THOTH 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More neutrality issues

It is believed that most of these were soon executed.

Believed by who? - FrancisTyers 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In the city of Edessa (modern Şanlıurfa) the local Armenian population, worried about their fate, revolted (early 1916) against the Ottoman government and took control of the old city.

Hmm, the inclusion of "worried about their fate" troubles me, it sounds as if the article is trying to justify the revolt. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have many things to do in the comming days so I will participate when I have more time. Just one thing for now, the term Edessa should be replaced by Ourfa, which is a more known name for it. Secondly, I doubt this event is enought important to be even included, first the term 'town' fit better than a city, second the term revolt is not appopriate, they tried resisting to the deportation with limited success after that the order of deportation came and that a military Ottoman unite penetrated the town. You can read more about it here. [14] the chapter XVII (THE TOWNS OF OURFA AND AC.). So, what happened there was more or less like elsewhere in the empire(deportation). Fad (ix) 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, maybe the person that added it was reffering to Musa Dagh? Fad (ix) 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, the "revolt" (actually it was self defense) was justified by contemporary German and Austrian (Turkish allies) officers and consuls. They confirmed that these people were scared to death, and desparately tried to defend themselves:

The “civil war argument” also hinges on the assertion that four specific Armenian uprisings—Shabin Karahisar (June 6-July 4, 1915), Musa Dagh (July 30-September 1915), Urfa (September 29-October 23, 1915) and in particular Van (April 20-May 17, 1915)—comprise a major, organized “Armenian rebellion”. Reports by consuls of Turkeys wartime allies—Austria and Germany, debunk this argument. The Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I, in his memoirs [43], characterized the Van uprising as “…an act of desperation” by Armenians who “…recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]”. Germany’s consul in Aleppo, Walter Rossler, described the Urfa uprising in similar terms. Imbued with the recent memory of the brutal 1895 massacre, and the unfolding spectacle of mas murder in their vicinity during the summer of 1915, the Urfa Armenians made a hasty, last ditch effort to defend themselves. (http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4436)--TigranTheGreat 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then might I suggest:

In early 1916, in the city of Ourfa (modern Şanlıurfa) the local Armenian population revolted against the Ottoman government and took control of the old city. Writing in his memoirs, the Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I characterised the revolt as "... an act of desperation" by Armenians who, "... recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]". The German consul in Aleppo wrote about the revolt in similar terms. insert Turkish POV here.

Again, just a suggestion, feel free to ignore it, change it, write it backwards, forwards, sideways and with BiCaPs or funny şîgŋß :) - FrancisTyers 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, this date is relative, second, since the Armenians action was an answer to the September-October plan of evacuation of the Armenians there and that it happened only after the army penatrated Ourfa to remove the population and the the Armenians refused to be deported, I would rather call this resistance, and as the link I have provided it failed, the Ottoman army stil enetered there and this 'resistance' was like butter. Fad (ix) 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis, sounds fine, but I the "revolt" term I find problematic--assumes it was initiated by Armenians, whereas the reality could be that they responded to the events. Can you propose a more NPOV term? Somewhere between "revolt" and "resistance?" And who said anyone was trying to ignore you :)? We are all colleagues in the Wiki community.--TigranTheGreat 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were ignoring me, I was just saying that you should feel free too. I haven't done much research in this area so I'm just flagging stuff that seems a bit odd to me. I'm not pretending to have any kind of academic level knowledge about it :) - FrancisTyers 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about: In the middle of October 1915, in the city of Ourfa (modern Şanlıurfa) the local Armenian population resisted temprarly to the order of deportation by a revolt against the Ottoman army and took control of the old city. Writing in his memoirs, the Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I characterised the revolt as "... an act of desperation" by Armenians who, "... recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]". The German consul in Aleppo wrote about the revolt in similar terms. insert Turkish POV here.

I removed 1916, because the resistance failed in October 1915 and that just after that Urfa vicinities were used as a transit zone where deportees were killed. Fad (ix) 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging remarks

I feel it important that we recognize that by putting so strong a warning on a page, we're essentially saying that the information may not be reliable. The information remaining on thi page after such protracted discussions and edits is certainly not biased, especially in light of the supporting documents presented.

Yes, I'm half Armenian. My paternal grandparents were orphaned by the attempted Genocide. My grandparents were 7 or 8 years old when this happened, and most certainly were old enough to remember their parents being murdered.

To dismiss this incredible tragedy, or even cast any question upon its occurance, is to permit it, to encourage it to happen again. It has been reputed that Hitler used the very same logic to assure his close associates that the world would not care, that when challenged, he cited that the world hadn't stopped the Turks from killing Armenians, and neither would they stop him from exterminating the Jews. He very nearly got away with it, just as the Turks have managed to get away with their genocide attempt. It truly is the bane of mankind that we forget. In most cases, history is written by the victors, which certainly explains why even more substantial proof does not exist. But I can assure you, and sign affidavit, that my grandparents existed, that their parents were murdered by the forces behind the Armenian Genocide of 1915, and that this is all very real, no matter how much the Turkish government may attempt to sweep it under the carpet. The ONLY difference between this and the Trail of Tears is that the U.S. government isn't denying that they did it.

It is my opinion that, in consideration of ample evidence that a genocide attempt DID occur, it would be socially irresponsible to even hint at that the Armenian Genocide is a myth or was justified by the excuses presented. To promote such misinformation is certainly far more offensive than the unlikely possibility that the Turks may have had mitigating factors to justify their killings.

Poles refuse to let Iranians "research" Holocaust on their soil

Deniers of the Holocaust and deniers of the Armenian Genocide - why should they be treated any differently?

Poland will not let Iran "research" Holocaust

Fri Feb 17, 2006

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland's Foreign Minister Stefan Meller on Friday ruled out allowing any Iranian researchers to examine the scale of the Holocaust committed by the German Nazis on Polish soil during World War Two.

Meller's remarks came after repeated denials of the Jewish Holocaust by Iranian officials and their suggestions that more research is needed to establish the truth about what happened to European Jews.

"Under no circumstances we should allow something like that to take place in Poland," Meller told Polish news agency PAP. "It goes beyond all imaginable norms to question, even discuss or negotiate the issue."

Polish daily Rzeczpospolita reported on Friday that Iran wants to send researchers to Poland to examine the scale of the Nazi crimes during the war.

Some 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust, with an estimated 1.1 million killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz- Birkenau, a death camp set up in German-occupied Poland.

Last week Iran's ambassador to Lisbon, who in the past served as a diplomat in Poland, said in an interview on Portuguese radio that according to his calculations based on a visit to the camp, now a museum, it would have taken the Nazis 15 years to burn the corpses of 6 million people.

--THOTH 06:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And what is the relevancy of this with the content of the article? Fad (ix) 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In the article and in discussions here there has been both the claim that the "Turkish position" requires equal legitimacy as the overwhelmingly accepted historical version of events and nomenclature. Additionally there has been specific reference to the Turkish President offering for Turkish "historians" and politicians to convene with Armenian counterparts to debate this issue and the (correct) refusal of the Armenian President to agree to such is used by those favoring the Turkish position as some sign of weakness regarding genocide claims. I post this here to put into proper perspective how denialists of known genocides should be treated - with disdain. I also believe that this correct reaction by the Poles (to not give deniers voice to bring foreward their pre-concieved conclusions based on erroneos manipulated and unsupportable "evidence") should serve as an example regarding how we should approach their shameful attemtps to mock these very painful historical events and to demean those of us who are still to this day affected by the actions taken against our kin. In fact all decent people should cry out against those who actively deny such crimes - as they do in the case of the holocaust so should they and we do in the case of the Armenian Genocide. Deniers of genocide do not deserve a platform to spread their lies and misinformation and IMO those who allow them to do such are guilty of complicity in the act.--THOTH 01:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And in a similar veign -

Last week, members of the Armenian Assembly of America filed to intervene in a lawsuit brought earlier this year by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations against the state’s Department of Education for teaching in its history curriculum “one side” on the Armenian genocide in Turkey in 1915.

Lawyers for the Turkish group have argued that teaching both sides is a matter of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

These are specious arguments.

We in the Jewish community should be especially concerned with attempts to deny accounts of historical atrocities that are well documented.

Historians estimate that more than 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey were killed in 1915 as part of a genocidal campaign, recognition of which has long been championed by Holocaust survivor and Boston University professor Elie Wiesel.

Under pressure from the European Union and international historians, the Turkish government has been urged to reconsider its official account of the episode: that there never was a systematic campaign to kill Armenians, and the deaths that occurred were the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.

Teaching about genocide is vital to preventing its reoccurrence. The Armenian genocide deserves a place alongside the Holocaust and other historical atrocities in the curriculums of our students.

The lawsuit by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations threatens to open the door to revisionist historians. Our community has a special stake in making sure that denial of genocide is not given a voice in our public schools. Any genocide – whether it be the Holocaust, Darfur or the Armenian genocide – deserves to be recorded and taught, not only for the memory of all the victims who suffered, but for our children’s future. Only through education and remembrance can we even attempt to stem the tide of hatred and violence. --THOTH 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoth, this talk page is to work on the current article, unless the material is relevant to the article and that the information could be added there, I see no reason to copypast stuff here, it has been done in the past, and I made that mistake too, people that come here from all this copypast materials lose sight. Fad (ix) 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I am posting this here for a reason - both to influence the lines of thinking concerning the article and to provide useful information concerning the Armenain genocide in general and in the hope that perhaps someone will realize where and why the current article falls short. I think I have kept copy-pasting to an absolute minimum considering - and when I do its not done without thought and purpose. --THOTH 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical Armenian mindset

[offensive, unconstructive, personal attacks and incivility deleted - FrancisTyers 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)]

I don't know where the author was coming from, but that person does not represent the "typical" Armenian, in mindset or otherwise. We don't hate on a broad-scale basis, and we don't consider people to be worthy of death, etc. There are extremists in any classification of people. I am not apologetic about how much it bothers me that Turkey would continue to deny their country's actions, and that they refuse to make reparations is likewise highly upsetting. It's reasonable that we be bothered by this. They attempted to exterminate us, and don't even grant us the dignity of recognition. But the solution is not found in revenge on people who weren't even alive when it happened. Contrition and returning some homeland to us IS within Turkey's abilities, though.

Imagine, if you will, that your ancestors for the past several thousand years lived in a region rich in history and culture, with mountains, deserts and seas. Relative newcomers sweep down from elsewhere, camp alongside... and you embrace them, allow that there's room enough for all. But they soon begin to take over, and essentially occupy you and your people. Then one day, with no valid cause or justification, they try to wipe you off the face of the planet and take your lands from you. Can you imagine that? Are you German? Irish? Swedish, French, Portuguese? You can still visit your heritage. When you take a taxi back there, the drivers and people don't deny that you existed for thousands of years. They don't usurp your architecture and claim it for their own. I'm not sure you can imagine it.

I'm first generation here in the States. My father was 1st generation in France, and my grandparents were born in Armenia, taken out of there at less than 7 years of age, orphaned by this genocide attempt that the Turks (people AND government, for the most part) still say never happened. By rights, I should be able to return to Armenia, see the history, the culture, perhaps even elect to live there. But I cannot. They took my great grandparent's lives, and continue to take that heritage to this day. Nothing can be done about their lives, and it's too late for them to replace the lack of affection that my grandparents suffered in an orphanage, the scars and memories of their parents' murder. It's too late to change how that affected my own father, and how he passed it on to me. But it's NOT too late for them to atone for it, and the first step is admitting that it happened.

I posted before about this: I remain bothered that this is being flagged as "disputed". It implies that the entire Genocide may not have happened. You effectively join them in preventing even that first step. Moderate the article as is proper; make sure that it follows reasonable fact, but... Please... do the right thing. Take off that flag. JT 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

you dont bother to mention the murder campaign by Armenian terrorists for more than a decade and you dare say that the sample hate letter that was deleted does not reflect the mindset of Armenians today? Sorry but I dont buy your rhetoric!

Uhm, mind signing your post? And it's not rhetoric, and you don't address any of that. Are you Turkish, by chance? While I'm asking questions, do you believe that the suicide bombers represent the mindset of most muslims, too? JT 06:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim is too general a term because it encompasses various races and ethnicities, on the other hand Armenian is very specific so you cant really compare the two! And no, I am not Turkish, I just bothered to hear their side of the story and as a result I have my doubts about this issue!

Does exclaiming it make you any more right? Sorry, you just sidestepped and waffled your way aound the point. There are some few extremists, muslim, Armenian, whatever... but to even think of judging a whole nation of people on that basis is highly irrational, and EXACTLY what you just did when you said Armenian is very specific so you can't reallycompare the two". You just tried to justify labeling a whole nationality based on the actions of a few. Tell me something: If it didn't happen, where did those million people go to? How did my great-grandparents become orphans? And, to be blunt, where do you get off trying to sweep it all under the carpet, anyway? Please tell me you're not a moderator for this subject.

Wikipedia is not a message board, find a forum or something. - FrancisTyers 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont't need a Forum, Francis. And you're right, Wikipedia is NOT a message board. It's SUPPOSED to be based on facts and information. So, with so much of the world recognizing the genocide as historical fact, why is it being allowed to turn into a political boxing ring? Why is there any Flag on this article, if it's being pursued academically? I'm not trying to jump your case personally, I'm pointing out that the few "Typical Armenian Mindset" people who would, for whatever reason, like to sweep the genocide under the carpet, are being allowed to rewrite history. History has already been rewritten by the victors enough, and for too long. I don't find it ethical that Wikipedia cast any sort of questionable haze onto the fact that it happened. Feel free to write me privately. JT 14:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then suggest improvements, suggest things that are wrong with the article :) - FrancisTyers 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first picture

Like I already said, this picture does not represent victims of the genocide, I questioned its uses and what it truly represent. In my belief it is an Ottoman army contingent who after fighting have removed the dress of a Russian white battalion defeat to than dessring with their victims uniform and shutting a picture of them. It could have been Russian Armenian battalion fighting for their Tsar or etc., but I doubt this picture represent genocide victims. Fad (ix) 16:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Mother & Children Image + Reason for current flag?

I know, there was discussion about the subject in the past, but it's exhausting to try to wade through it all. When I clicked on the link to the original, I found that: 1) The image has been flipped horizontally, and lightened (which gives it a less clear appearance and less grim "feel.") I suggest reverting to the source image, cropping to remove the original photo's text, if necessary. I realize it may have been flipped horizontally for appearance's sake but the image is less powerful as presented. I can do this, if requested, but it's not my intention to get into an editing war, so I'm putting it up here to discuss first.

2) Why is there still a "disputed" flag on the article? To the general public, this suggests that the fact of the genocide itself is in dispute.

Thank you. JT 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

yes I agree, it should have a more grim feel to it and whilst you are at it why dont you add a couple of dead bodies to enhance the shock factor? You can always inspire yourself from that other photo montage of Ataturk sipping a coffee with dead bodies around him!

Why don't you start signing your posts? It should have the REALITY of the original picture, not be literally whitewashed so that it doesn't show the harshness of what happened (and continues to happen when people are made to starve to death. JT 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with wanting me to sign my posts? I dont understand what difference it would make but if it will console you I will call myself LOL! Ok?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.78.102.104 (talk • contribs) 25 Feb 2006.

This topic has been hijacked by THOTH and FADIX

Its tragic that this is occuring in a so called open source project!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.78.111.190 (talk • contribs) 26 Feb 2006.

Yes I guess you'll want to revert all my edits eh? Feel free...lol...just make sure that you are adding real supportable content and not trash propoganda and irrelevency. I can see by your input on the talk page that you are just brimming with ideas and useful facts and perspective to add and that you have some ideas concerning how the article can be improved...so feel free - by all means present your ideas here if you think they merit consideration. However if you don't have anything more of sunstance to add then what you have already then I suggest that you have no basis for complaint...--THOTH 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember Thoth having edited this article, and if he did, it was probably reverted. As for me, give examples of hijacking or stop this character assassination. Fad (ix) 02:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems like the censorship boys are back! The fact of the matter is that both of you are the real revisionists here, anything that doesnt suit your agenda, you eliminate and the proof of this is in the history of this topic. Oh and THOTH, im a bit dissappointed by you, cant you come up with something better than the lame "character assassination" accusation? LOL. Oh and give us a valid argument for removing TAT in the opposing section instead of providing your trademark silly and obscure comments. After all you you dont seem to mind poorly constructed sites like "armenian reality"! Its clear to me that TAT's comprehensive analysis is not at all in your interest!

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)] "TATs comprehensive analysis"? "analysis"? [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)] --THOTH 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the site is registered under a proxy, second the guy copypasted materials which originate from Seldar the newspaper spammer who was known to fabricate sources. I have given various examples to the author of tallarmeniantales who was a member of Wikipedia, of quotes he present in his site that don't even exist, he slanders many authors and makes many racist comments. As for armenianreality.com, I have requested it to be removed and hoped that at least one user will be bright enought to remove that link, had there been any such site anywhere else in Wikipedia it would have been removed right away and you know it. If we were to rely on Wikipedia policies on the links provided many sites will have to go and I left them, so I am far from being someone who silence people here. Fad (ix) 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FADIX you are at it again, you accuse the TAT guy of this and that, but dont mention any concrete examples of outright racism and fabrications because I dont know about you but those are serious allegations you are making! If you want to get the message through, give concrete examples not just vague accustations that you seem to be so accustomed to making!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

Hey, don't be rude! --Latinus 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, it is your job to read the talkpage history before attacking someone for an issue already covered. I will not spoonfeed you, tallarmeniantales website has been covered in various occasions and I will start again recycling what has been already covered again and again everytime someone raises the issue. Read the history of this talk page, also, the section Fadix analysis includes this debates between Torque(AKA Holdwater who IS the author of tallarmeniantales) and I. Everyone can start out a website and registering under a proxy, there is no way that a website registered under a proxy could find its place here. Read more carefully what the author is saying about Taner Akcam, Berktay, Israel Charny, Dadrian etc..., in this website, not to forget professor Ozan email to an Armenian comparing the Armenians with the lowest form of life, ask Coolcat about this, I have already copypasted that racistic material right before his eyes. Fad (ix) 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry but I didnt find anything remotely "racistic" in the Ozan email (maybe I am not looking at the right place?) and its an established fact that Taner Akcam is a left wing terrorist! As for the other apologists, dont even get me started!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

You Armenians claim that you are the direct descendents of Prophet Noah. What a self-serving braggadocio! According to your 'fable' you were saved from the deluge by prophet Noah taking you the Armenians into his wooden barge. It is reported in the Bible that he took two of every kind of creature, at the height of those terrible floods, those who would otherwise be destined to drown. He must have taken at least two of your kind into his ship also.

But let us not forget that he also took in among other creatures, Hyenas, snakes, leeches and scorpions too. I got a hunch that he was not very happy that he had given the Armenians a ride. He is heard afterwards saying the following: "What a mistake have I committed? What a wonderful place this GOD's earth could have been If I had not taken them in with us to be transported to dry lands."

Those are pretty sad words, Mr. Gasparian, but not mine. Mine would be: "Let even the Armenians live among us. There is still hope that they may be transformed eventually into some acceptable creatures. There is still hope for them even, because look at history! It is replete with primitive mortals who were the most uncivilized, the most cruel, the most boodthirsty people of their times: the "Vikings." Since we can count all Scandinavians, the descendents of the Vikings nowadays amongst the most civilized, most humane, most peaceful members of wordly society of human beings, who knows, Mr. Gasparian, your kind also, one day, will see the light and emulate the Vikings. At least that is my fervent wish for you and for your people.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand why this is racistic, neither the other racistic trashes spewed by so-called Holdwater and his friend who has personally treatned Gocek with hate mails which could be traced back from turkishforum mailing list. Fad (ix) 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting and could you provide me with the link from which you got the text? Sorry but I dont trust you much dear hijacker!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

Stop accusing me of being a Hijacker, I already told you from where Ozans text comes from. [15]

Interesting how you take it all out of context, if you ask me I find the comments of this Gasparian fellow about dancing on Sam Weems grave more shocking! Censorship will get you nowhere my dear hijacker!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

It's just pointless anonymous accusation. I'd recommend to ignore it. --tasc 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Taner Akcam is a convicted terrorist

and since his integrity is being questioned, his views cannot be taken seriously—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

Maybe, but we can say: According to Taner Akcam... --Latinus 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

maybe, but we should also mention that he is a convicted terrorist so that others get the full picture!!!

Perhaps just a link would be enough. --tasc 20:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to briefly mention this material FACT!

Well, I don't think so. Give a link, and whoever whants to read about him, will do so. It's convicted in Turkey right? well, it doesn't look to convincingly. --tasc 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What, are you kidding me? Because its in Turkey it doesnt seem convincing to you? Who do you think you are? Last time I checked the rule of law was fully functional in Turkey! And as a matter of fact, he was convicted in the 70's for belonging to left wing terroristic organizations, way before he made any claims on the Armenian issue, so you cannot argue that his conviction was due to the Turkish bias against genocide claims!

Last time I've heard news regarding Turkey, it was about "convicted" genocide researcher... rule of law so to say. I now who I'm as a rest of readers. Would you be so kind as to sign you're comments with 4 tildes. --tasc 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote? He was convicted back in the 70's for belonging to several left wing terrorist organizations, HELLO!!! You seem to have a serious prejudice against Turkey like most of the others that have hijacked this topic! 195.186.224.61 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying back in 70's Turkey was more free country. well, it's intersting. What of the internationaly recognized terror organization did he belong to? --tasc 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, he started with THKPC (Turkish peoples liberation party front) followed by Dev-Yol (Revolutionary path) followed by Gocmen Hareket in Germany. Ofcourse that was back in the 70's and who would trust Turkey back then? LOL, you guys make me laugh!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

It is pretty much known why Akçam was convicted, and it had nothing to do with terrorist activities unlike the character assassinators... they even invented a story about Akçam not paying his insurances or what have you. The accusations against his person were so unfounded that when he visited Turkey and people were starting to wonder why he wasn't arrested during his lecture when everyone knew where he was, idiots and character assassinators have invented the story about his conviction being outdated or something such when everyone enought intelligent knew silently was a build up story trying to fool those enought dumb to buy it. Isen't it amazing that you claim that my accusations are serious for some proxy guy hidding under anonymousity slandering every scholars he want and inventing things about them, and when you yourself engage in such character assassinations? If you have nothing to contribute in the article, consider that this talk page is not a forum. Fad (ix) 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FADIX, once again you fabricate your way through, your claims that Akçam was an angel reflects a systematic pattern of deception from your behalf. Do you realize the damage you do by trying to distort facts? Get real, this guy is a convicted terrorist, the reason why he was not arrested when he went back to Turkey was because his warrant expired. I think the fact he was not arrested reflects positively on the rule of law in Turkey!83.76.136.222 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that with all the Armenian fanatics in the states that by revealing his identity, he might be risking his life??? Just like Stanford Shaw who mentioned on several occasions that he several times got death threats from Armenian fanatics bent on intimidating him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 26 Feb 2006

Well, the last time a scholar was intimidated related with this issue was Gocek, the intimidation even originated from turkishforum. but I have not generalized like you are doing by packing the entire Turkish community in the same bag. It is a matter of fact that you can't do better than reffering to a cases of 2 decades ago, while Gocek cases was weeks ago and this has continued for years. Also, the reasons why he registered under a proxy is irrelevent, what is relevent is that he has registered under a proxy and his website contains racistic materials and fabricated quotes and there is no name attached to the site as a contact info to give that site some credibility. For example, ANI institute, if it had a non-existing quote would be contacted and will lose its credibility if it does it regularly. There are of course other such examples like armenianreality which should also be removed. I am sure that you would have been the first to jump to remove a site, if its doman name was tallturkishtales, turkishrealities, turkishclaimslies etc., but you have no problem wanting to include such craps yourself when it is directed against the Armenians. Fad (ix) 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop using foul language you naughty boy. Now I havent event visited the sites you are referring to, its probably a treasure chest of baseless allegations. Your arguments tend to be extremely hollow, just an endless stream of hot air with nothing really tangible. Sad, really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.61 (talk • contribs) 27 Feb 2006

Look, guys. This is Wikipedia - you can include anything in the articles providing that it's relevant. In this case, you wouldn't present Akcam's claims as a statement of fact, you would just say Taner Akcam said X, Y and Z and let the reader make up his or her mind. --Latinus 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just like Turkish deniers to attack the person and not the (true) message - look at Pamuk for instance - he is a "traitor" etc. Anyway - Akcam is fully accepted as a scholar and a scholar of the Armenian Genocide at that. Furthmore the fact that he is on the leading edge of Turkish scholars who are approaching the Genocide and the history of the period from a perspective of historical truth and not repeating CUP and current Turkish Government racist propoganda is certainly something to be noted. Additionally the analysis Akcam provides is right on the money and is most relevant and illustrative of not only the dynamics of the Genocide - but as much or even more so concerning the dynamics of Turkish denial. He is a serious scholar whose views deserve the utmost consideration - not character assasination. These bogus charges against him are a joke - and are typical of the culture of denial and of the problems Turkey has had with dissent. I could not see the views of any current American or European scholar being dismissed strictly because he had been charged or even convicted of civil disobedience at some point in his past during his youth...come now...this is incredibly weak - as are - of course - all of the Turkish arguments in denial of the Genocide. Isn't it time to both face up to the past...and to get back on topic? (of course this type of character assasination is about the only trick left in the Turkish denialist book at this point) --THOTH 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats just great, so if it was a serial rapist we were talking about, his opinion would be respected just because he supports your views! I suggest we pardon all the convicts of the world that support the view that what the Turks committed was a genocide!

Thats very weak and unworthy of comment. Do you have anything of substance to say? --THOTH 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

THOTH you remind me of Irving, just another frustrated revisionist trying to blur the facts. If a convicted felon is a serious scholar for you and the rest of your fellow hijackers, then its difficult to take you seriously. I just cant be bothered to waste time arguing with you if you are going to cite former terrorists to make your point. Its just plain pathetic!

Shelby28

I see you've only edited this particular artical. Seems, like you're pushing POV here. And you're not taking part in the discussion. --tasc 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From a partial point of view, it's just funny that Armenians spent this much money, time and effort in propagating unfounded claims. (No partial and respected historian classify these events as genocide). Zevaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.161.150 (talk • contribs)

Current Lead

The current lead sentance reads: "The Armenian Genocide was the claim that deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I."

Why the past-tense? Is it no longer a claim? I'm guessing this is a POV insert to try and soften the lead. Pugget (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the status of this opening sentence as fact or claim, present tense or past tense, it remains bad and ungrammatical English as it lacks a main verb. It could be improved by adding the words "took place" after "Ottoman Empire". An alternative, but obviously more contentious, improvement to the grammar of the sentence would be to remove the words "was the claim that" and replace them with the words "refers to the". But I can't see how to do this, as I can't find an edit button for the opening paragraph of this article. Solaricon (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're on the main article page there is the "edit this page" button next to "discussion". You should be able to edit the introduction from there. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he can't: he's a new user and the page is semi-protected. Sardur (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In the current lead there is a claim: “with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one a half million”, I have tried to change this supported by sources to “three hundred thousand to one a half million”, which also the same presented in section “Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918”. My change was on several times reverted. If one desires to make any corrections to this article full of flaws and bias statements an edit war seems inevitable. Hittit (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits by MarshallBagramyan

It is a still disputed event of history and there is no consensus by hitorians, though there is one by Ottoman history experts but of course you wouldn't accept that. These are claims and the article should reflect that. Wiki shouldn't take a side but show it as the way it is.

The number of deaths is not 1.5 million for Western sources. The article that MarshallBagramyan references as a "Western Source" says "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey." Though the source is from BBC the claim is made by Armenia rather than "Western Sources." What the Western sources agree on is maximum of 1.5 million Armenian living in Ottoman Empire prior to WWI. It's only Armenian sources that equates this number of deaths to 1.5 million.

There are many other poorly done recent edits in this article by MarshallBagramyan. A detailed revision of these edits is needed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

By inserting the word "claim" of genocide, you are denying the Genocide. Refrain from doing so. It would be redundant for me to give the reasons for this reasoning. Serouj (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is simply flawed. Saying that something is a claim neither denies nor accepts that. I ask you to stop with the revertings as they have no basis other than serving your own agenda. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dark, I understand your pain when you see Armenian Genocide recognized and Ottoman turkish racism condemned. but calm down please. even the radical deniers know, that almost all the western sources as well as Genocide resolutions (included last one by US House Committee) cite 1,5 million deaths. Read the sources! Andranikpasha (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself TheDarkLordSeth, that the word "claim" gives a possibility for denial, which is what you want to do first to serve your own agenda claiming in it others. Aregakn (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the majority of historians who are experts on Ottoman history do not believe in the genocide claims, it is a claim. There is no international consensus on the subject. Just because certain organizations who have nothing to do with scholar study and historians decided that it was a genocide doesn't make it real. On the subject of number 1.5 million is never used by the Western sources. Only the French sources are close to that with 1.2 million and the rest goes lower. The ones that are higher are only Armenian sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there are 60+ historians who questions the genocide claims. Here is a list of some of those historians:

Bernard Lewis - Professor Emeritus of Islamic History and Middle Eastern Studies, Princeton University, MA in Middle Eastern History and PhD in Islamic Studies, University of London.

Justin McCarthy - Professor of History and Demographer, Louisville University. Ph.D. in history, University of California, Los Angeles.

Andrew Mango - Researcher, author and historian, University of London. PhD in Persian Literature, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).

Heath W. Lowry - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies, Princeton University.

Edward J. Erickson - Researcher, Birmingham University, retired Lieutenant-Colonel, PhD in Ottoman Military History, The Leeds University.

Gwynne Dyer - Historian, military analyst and journalist, Ph.D. in Ottoman military history, The King’s College London.

Arend Jan Boekestijn - Lecturer in history of international relations, History Department at Utrecht University, Netherlands.

Jeremy Salt - Ph.D., Middle Eastern History, Melbourne University, 1980. Middle Eastern Studies.

Michael M. Gunter - Professor of political science, Tennessee Technical University, PhD in International Relations, The Kent State University.

Eberhard Jäckel - Professor Emeritus of modern world history, Stuttgart University.

Guenter Lewy - Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Stanford Shaw - Professor Emeritus of History, UCLA.

Norman Stone - Former professor of Modern History at Oxford and lecturer at Cambridge, adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Hew Strachan - Chichele Professor of the History of War, University of Oxford.

Brian G. Williams - Associate Professor of Islamic History at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, PhD in Middle Eastern and Islamic Central Asian History. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Gilles Veinstein - Professor, Turkish and Ottoman History, Collège de France.

Robert F. Zeidner - Ph.D. in Ottoman Military history. Universiy of Utah, Middle East Center.

A claim is a claim as long as it's not accepted by all sides and backed up by enough proof.

For the Western sources part, the reference that is used quotes that Armenian claim is 1.5 million. Find multiple sources showing that the French, British, and American sources show that it was 1.5 million then I'll won't revert the edit. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a genocide occurred is established beyond any reasonable point of debate. Whether or not Turkish historians (or you) accept it is neither here nor there; that is a 'claim' that it did not happen. A false claim, in the face of overwhelming evidence. The exact number of deaths may - may - be open to discussion, But the fact that a genocide occurred is not. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the historians above are Turkish. It is highly open to debate whether what happened was a genocide or not. It is not an established fact in any way. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And some of those above do call it a genocide! Even Erickon who you quoted earlier calls it a massacre. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This denialist argument has been addressed several times, see the archives of this talk page.

Btw, the "claim" issue was inserted on 3 April 2010. Sardur (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

CheesyBiscuit, They do not call it a genocide. Of course there were massacres. Nobody denies that but genocide is different that massacres. Saying that massacres happens does not equal nor mean saying that it was a genocide. From Erickson's article: "There is little argument that many Armenians perished during World War I, but there remains significant historical dispute about whether Armenian civilians died in the fog of war or were murdered on the orders of the Ottoman government." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) For information, this argument has expanded to here —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyBiscuit (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dark (I love Seth), I read the discussion in the reliable sources as well. I just have one question for you, if I may, about your PERSONAL opinion. Do you see any of the following actions constituting the acts of the Armenian massacres (just ANY of these happened or not with the Armenians that here we can call a "group"):

Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Did any of these take place?

Thank you in advance. Aregakn (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut the word play.

Funny how you're forgetting to put the first part of the definition:

"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.

Ethnic clashes are not genocides. You seriously have to make that description. Armenians, Turks, Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds and other Christian or Muslim population of Ottoman Empire was subject to massacres by their counterparts in the region. For it to be a genocide you need the government or an organization to have the intent to kill members of a group. There is no such involvement by the Ottoman government. This was searched in the Malta tribunals by an Armenian scholar that was commissioned by the British to examine the archives of Ottoman, British and Americans. No evidence was found. There are also military orders from Ottoman government to spare any supplies for the marching Armenians to make their journey as easy as possible but due to the status of the empire it was not enough. So no. Armenians were not killed with the intent to destroy their whole ethnicity by the Ottoman government. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not making a wordplay here unlike you, and I shall prove it here. You certainly lack the attention (or do it on purpose) to read your own citations! Pay attention again: "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...".

Do you see anything here like "For it to be a genocide you need the government or an organization ..."? Anywhere mentioned a government or an organisation or anything like that? Definitely not!

To make it easy for the discussion I was to put the "first part" of the article 2 later. Without that first part it wouldn't be able to come to the situation I guess you thought I wanted to come to. And if I was to wordplay I'd hide all other aspects not concerning the Armenian Genocide and rephrase the words so that anybody knowing at least a bit how to use the Internet wouldn't copy and paste in, for isntance, google, and look for the texts there, that were obviously not composed by an editor.
I advice you to approach other editors in good faith if you want to make a difference and build an understanding. Your first message to me, for example, was an attack. Here I was trying to ease the tensions, but that, unfortunately, as I see, didn't take place. Hope the next message of yours would be a bit different. Believe it or not, I always feel more comfortable when talking calmly, friendly and with a goal to reach a solution rather than shouting and fighting people in the street.
I would also like you to have viewed (if you haven't yet) the interview with the inventor of the term Dr. Lemkin, where he explains how and what were the bases of it. Unfortunately I have not seen the whole interview yet but the part concerning this discussion you can see here [16]. I wonder if you knew that, together with the Holocaust, Lemkin points out the Armenian Genocide/massacres (he points it out the first, probably because of chronology) as why the term came to his mind would change your point of view on if the term is correct or not. You need only the first 40 seconds to hear that.
If you are willing to continue the discussion, please answer if one of the above mentioned took place towards the Armenians. As I said, the "first part" comes later. Aregakn (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not really need to explain to you the legality of the convention. The section (a) did happen in Ottoman Empire for Armenians, Kurds, Turks, Greeks, Assyrians and other groups. You need a single entity that is responsible of the entirety of the deaths to have it as a genocide. Genocide has to be distinguished from simple murder. If not every ethnic clash would be a genocide between such groups. If we are not to make the distinction that genocides are committed by governments or organizations then we'd have millions of genocide cases just in WWI.

I believe you would agree with me that individual incident in ethnic clashes do not constitute as a genocide. Would you?

But to be clear and give the answer you want. Yes, Armenians as members of their ethnic community were killed.

Well, Dr. Lemking coining the term to "Armenian Genocide" doesn't really prove it. It only proves that what he believed to be true constitutes as a genocide which is true. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, anybody would agree, that one village clashing with an other on social bases isn't a genocide. But one has to agree, that an organised attack of civilians is a genocide. Otherwise, it cannot take that magnitude, even judging theoretically.

Doctor Lemkin not only believed, that it was a genocide. He invented the term on the base of it and the Holocaust.

Now if you agree on the term, maybe we, all the editors, should quit discussing that and/or whatever constituted that, or if it's a claim and go into the details. The argumentations or the works of scholars denying the genocide can be states in the part of the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, having discussed them beforehand, of course. Aregakn (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have never studied the structure of Ottoman empire. In such a place where multiple ethnic groups living together in a tight packed way ethnic violence can spread very easily. You're implying that Muslims were organized while you're ignoring the fact that it's a fact that the Armenians were organized by the Russians in the North East and by the French and British in the South East. There are many such accounts from Armenian sources as well. Boghos Nubar Pasha himself puts the number of Armenian forces fighting inside Ottoman Empire at 50 thousand.

I agree on the fact that the events of WWI does not constitute as a genocide. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your answer. These will help me understand your position in the discussions. Aregakn (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)