m Signing comment by ArmenianPhD - "→The Historian: " |
Deleting the spamming of the talk-page and racist attacks (a warning will be issued this time) |
||
Line 1,396: | Line 1,396: | ||
::The Khojaly article as a whole presents what happened according to both sides (which is why links supporting both sides are presented), whereas this one simply presents the Armenian genocide. And also, the so-called "Armenian perspective" is not a simple perspective only limited to Armenians. It is the reality accepted and proven by historians, specialists, and also by Turks, whereas the "Turkish perspective" only has support in the Turkish government, in certain circles in Turkey, and from a couple of historians who are friends of Turkey. --[[User:Davo88|Davo88]] ([[User talk:Davo88|talk]]) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
::The Khojaly article as a whole presents what happened according to both sides (which is why links supporting both sides are presented), whereas this one simply presents the Armenian genocide. And also, the so-called "Armenian perspective" is not a simple perspective only limited to Armenians. It is the reality accepted and proven by historians, specialists, and also by Turks, whereas the "Turkish perspective" only has support in the Turkish government, in certain circles in Turkey, and from a couple of historians who are friends of Turkey. --[[User:Davo88|Davo88]] ([[User talk:Davo88|talk]]) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Proven to be "friends of Turkey" by their own peers, not only claimed to be "friends". [[User:Aregakn|Aregakn]] ([[User talk:Aregakn|talk]]) 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
:::Proven to be "friends of Turkey" by their own peers, not only claimed to be "friends". [[User:Aregakn|Aregakn]] ([[User talk:Aregakn|talk]]) 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Armenians are abusing Wiki == |
|||
Armenians are the proffessional killers and they are hiding the reality on wikipedia. Whenever i try to suggest my opinions and knowledge they are deleting them from wikipedia. Dont believe Armenian Lies they are killing the Turks and then they start to talk about a lie-genocide. Look at Khodjali Massacre killers are Armenians! Today Azerbaijani lands are under the invasion of Armenia |
|||
I really recommend you to delete this page and such kind of pages. Because all the doccuments on this page are based on lies. [[User:Maverick16|Maverick16]] ([[User talk:Maverick16|talk]]) 06:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: This is not a racist article. This is just informing what happened in history. Racist is the page which is related to thi so called genocide. [[User:Maverick16|Maverick16]] ([[User talk:Maverick16|talk]]) 06:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
My grand parents are killed by Armenians but you are not mentioning it here. Whenever i try to tell it you are deleting my subjects. This is what you are doing as a racism. [[User:Maverick16|Maverick16]] ([[User talk:Maverick16|talk]]) 07:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: why dont you suggest your own claims instead of deleting? Is there anything you are affraid of? Maybe we will find the reality? We all know what happened in 1915 and you dont want to mention it right? [[User:Maverick16|Maverick16]] ([[User talk:Maverick16|talk]]) 07:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Maverick, articles such as Armenian Genocide, Armenian Repatriations, Armenian this and that is just one way of using Wikipedia as a channel for the thesis of the Armenian lobby. A single editor has small chances of adding NPOV views in these articles. On the other hand articles on the historical suffering of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922#Discussion_on_the_Merge Ottoman Muslims] is savagely attacked, proposed for deletion or merged. --[[User:Hittit|Hittit]] ([[User talk:Hittit|talk]]) 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Please contribute with a neutral approach, and note that Talk pages are not a forum for personal attacks or personal opinions. Respectfully, [[User:RomaC|RomaC]] ([[User talk:RomaC|talk]]) 15:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:34, 31 May 2010
Armenian genocide is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commemorations
Does anyone know more about the commemorations in Turkey today where thousands of scholars, intellectuals, human rights activits and well-known Turkish artists commemorated these events and apologised for it? I think we should add that to the article. Bare in mind though that we should keep neutrality. Armenians weren't completely innocent either. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is a little insight: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/24/genocide/ and http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/23/ankara/. Should be more on the net in the next few days.
- May be we should add this but keep in mind that The Republic of Turkey don't recognize "The Armenian Genocide". For Turkey it is still a claim and they are right because there is no better evidence-if you can call it an evidence-than Armenian scholarship. Turkey stil wants a history comission which will look at the Ottoman and Armenian archives so that the truth about "Armenian Genocide" can be found. Though Turkey accepts that massacres against Armenians were done but also massacres against Turks were done too. And none of them were govermentally supported. Besides those activists and intellectuals are condemned by the Turkish nation because they generally do that just to be famous. However, if you would like I can provide you a list of those intellectuals who are apoligizing for the "Armenian Genocide", there is a site for that in Turkey. Altough I don't understand why they are apoligizing for a non-existing thing.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Jorgenpfhartogs, you should bare in mind, that before accusing one wholenation in something, you have to think very carefully, as this is incorrect terminology to use and may be count to be "racistic": "Armenians weren't completely innocent...".
- 2) When having such things said you should not only use correct wording, but also express exactly what you mean and what connection there is with the topic opened by you. Otherwise it may be (see point 1).
- Regards, Aregakn (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. let me rephraze that. I think it's good that some Turks finally take responsibilty for what happened. I fully un derstand that not every Turk or every Armenian are or were responsible for events in the past. There's enough evidence to proof something did happen though any proof this was organised by the Turkish government is very unclear since of course the Turkish government would never release such documents. What I meant with the Armenians weren't completely innocent is the reason for why Turks and Armenians hated each other so much and that is high tensions between the two nations. Armenians of course did kill Turks too though not on the same scale. That's why this was called a war. British and German soldiers at the same time killed each other en masse too. It's very sad these things happened but my believe is that a genocide did happen.
It's not a racist thing and the sooner both nations accept the events the sooner they can think about forgiving each other. After all, Turks and Armenians have also lived peacefully next to each other for a long time and many Armenians still live in Turkey. My question was however regarding the recent commemorations and increasing calls by Turkish people to acknowledge the genocide. I still believe we should document that change in attitude in Turkey since it is significant to the articleas a whole. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- So I hope you can clearly state the sources or maybe clarify what you mean "armenians killed turks"! If you mean the self-defense groups is one thing, but if you mean some kind of organisation with an aim to kill turks you have to cite.
- In addition, it is clear you have no idea of who participated in the WWI. FYI, there was no Armenia as a state then and Armenia could not be a state involved in a war. Comparing Germany and Britain armies with the Ottoman army and the civilian population of it's own state sounds ridiculous.
- You are also bringing up an issue of hatred of 2 nations towards each other for whatever period based on.....? Any reading made on that? Or maybe there are citations you can bring?
- You also fail to have known or at least read about (at least) the Turkish Courts-Martial. Turkey itself had condemned the involvement of it's government in the war AND the Armenian Massacres.
- FYI, some citation that concerns our topic from a very long verdict (separate paragraphs from it):
There was even more to it. They created an even greater atmosphere of harassment of the non-Islamic elements of the land, the Armenians in particular, who had hoped, from our precious Constitution, for justice and peace. These people now understood that they had been victimised by hypocrisy, and they assumed the posture of awaiting that opportune moment when they would be able to realize their former national aspirations. And the cause of all this were the Ittihadists themselves. They even raised national and racial issues among the Moslems of the land, they promoted divisiveness and conflict and jeopardized Ottoman unity. All this has been established by the intensive studies and examinations done of the matter as they appear in the charge of the Attorney General.
The authors of the above-mentioned crimes, representing the moral person of the Ittihad and Terakki Party, are the members of its General Assembly, the fugitives — Prime Minister Talaat Pasha and Minister of War Enver Effendi, now expelled from his military career; Djemal Effendi, Minister of the Navy, likewise expelled from the service; Dr. Nazim, Minister of Education — these were the principal criminals(fayili asli)and their guilt has been determined by a unanimous vote.
As to the sentences: punishment is to be meted to the abovementioned persons: Talaat, Enver, Djemal and Dr. Nazim, whose crimes were the greatest according to the first paragraph of the 45th Article of the Imperial Municipal Punitive Lawbook; also to be punished are Djavid, Mustafa Sheref and Musa Kiazim, by virtue of the second paragraph of the same Article and in accordance with the last paragraph of the 55th Article of the same Lawbook.
- Published in the Official Gazette of Turkey (Takvimi Vekayi),no. 3604 (supplement), July 22, 1919.
Of course, Turks butchered Armenians! (If you can't understand it, it was sarcasm.) Now, if you will show a gazette of Ottoman Empire-not Turkey- you should also show that they were independent. Many gazettes in 1919 were in British control. Accept it it was a war and we had a fight. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide." [[1]]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- For a sarcastic guy like you, you should better look for the ruling of the Courts-Martial first. And once again, you fail to understand (I think any) Wiki rules. Do not interpret the sources! one way or another, it's a POV you claim now, a ridiculous one, I'd say. Aregakn (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sarcastic indeed, Mr.Patriocide. You said "Do not interpret the sources!" If we are not interpreting the sources of something, are we even human? Or do you want people to just believe in "Turks butchered Armenians" so that the Armenian people can have some attention? You are accusing me and TheDark with propaganda and who are opposing with so-said Armenian Genocide turns out to be racist so that you can prove the claim of Armenian Genocide without any good support. Don't you think that you are the one making this propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
This article is brazenly biased in many parts and should be marked
as a bare minimum before any corrective discussion takes place. This is an alleged event, and highly controversial, but this is not reflected in the writing at all. The article is almost universally supportive of the events being acts of genocide, and paints the Turkish statements of explanation as little more than lies. This really should not occur from such an influential source as wikipedia.
- Do you know what neutrality means to claim this? You might be thinking that neutrality means putting on weighs as many of counterarguments as there are arguments, but it is about the neutrality of points of views. here there are no points of views but facts based on reliable sources. I'd suggest you consulting the Wiki rules and terms first! Aregakn (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that you read the article once again. It utilizes documents that have been proven to be forgeries as if they were authentic. This article is a vile attempt of propaganda and those that are involved are really pathetic. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Memoirs of Naim Bey is one such example. There have been no findings of an existence of an officer in the Ottoman government or service. The documents it utilizes doesn't even have the date right. Aram Andonian made a fool out of himself by forging these documents as he can't even convert Rumi date to Gregorian date. You don't really need to be an expert to understand that telegrams sent to officers when they were not even stationed in that location at that time or served under that title that the documents suggest are wrong. But, of course due to lack of any evidence they're often utilized by Armenian and Western scholars. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is a monolog
This article in most part is an Armenian monolog, it lacks contrary views and attempts to present views contradicting the Armenian thesis are deleted and quoted as unreliable (no discussions allowed)…we are led to believe that works by reputable historians published by Cambridge or Harvard University press are a mere scratches on a cave wall by denialists and that compilations by Lutheran missionaries and reports by foreign third parties supportative of the Armenian cause the only acceptable sources. You cannot have an objective article without including views to the contrary and their sources.Hittit (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not enough that sourced data is removed from the article, discussion is even removed from the talk page...Hittit (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- For your information, this is not a thesis. It is what you claim it to be so it's your POV. International organisations including the UN do not share your POV, so stop diluting yourself.
- I'd suggest editors to speak on concrete issues rather than make statements.
The article, gives no background why the Armenians were deported or killed. It does not mention the thousands of Armenians attacking Turkish civilians before the attrocies against them started. The part that deals with the controversy surrounding the genocide only mentions how Turkey and only Turkey is "trying to stop the term from being used," and by giving some unobjective sources tries to show how Turkey bullies around to stop it from being recognized. There are numerous international historians, organisations as well as over one hundred nations who think that it's not a genocide. Why aren't any of these mentioned? For any person with a little bit common sense, this is not an encyclopdeia article, its not evet subjective, its pure and simple propaganda. If you're going to be biased at least do it with some style. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Talking in the air isn't useful. All is correct in the article and is references properly. Aregakn (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's not an answer. I asked why are some aspects deliberately left unmentioned. A statement like "all is correct" is senseless. All this discussion is because a vast number of people have some real concerns about the neutrality of this article. All might not be correct dear Aregakn.--Diren Yardimli (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are well referenced changes deleted? Hittit (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oglim, the statement about being correct refers to the rules of Wiki. The concerns of neutrality (so to say) are base on a claim, that the denialistic view of the Turkish government isn't vastly composed and presented in the article. Neutrality isn't an issue of a bias being represented in the article or not. Aregakn (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The term Genocide
This term is refered to what Nazis did during WW II. This should be changed as "crime" in case of what happened in 1915. Cenkdemir (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there is enough of a distinction in that there exists the term "Holocaust" for what the Nazis did in WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.93.45 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Presently this term refers to what the UN Genocide Convention is about. Look for it and read it! And for your info, both, the UN and the Genocide Convention occured after WW II but the term existed before it.Aregakn (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION. Hittit (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- And you just broke the 1 revert rule that is in place on this article. What makes you think that it doesn't apply to you? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's your revert that breaks the rule, not the first one. This is clearly explained in the warning that comes up on the edit screen, which you obviously chose to ignore. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Strange, some one reverts without justification referenced addition to the article and that is not considered a violations, reverting back is a violation? Is then editing this article a violation in its self, or only for some seleceted editors? Hittit (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't you pay attention to the explanation given. You have to discuss a change then to make it. a revert of an undiscussed change IS prohibited. If one cannot read the rules and understand them before making edits, they should do none. Aregakn (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Some one just made a change to the article and removed sourced addition, which was not discussed I expect that you will revert it asap so we can have a throughout disucussion beforehand. Hittit (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion should have taken place before the insertion of this extremely biased addition. Sardur (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I see, so as long as the outcome suits your bias there is no need for discussion, therefore you should have no reason to complain in the future. I can assume then that you will not file a complaint against Diranakir? Hittit (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have to make a warning to you, Hittit, and try to explain the obvious biased changes you are making to this article. The terms you are trying to add do not refer to the issue and content of the article but to the people that express an opinion. Politicians using milding terms like "alleged" etc. for their own political goals of either not offending the turkish government are not what one is allowed to bring into the article as it's part. If you want to note what one politician said, you do it as a citation in the relevant paragraph! The same is about A degree owner. You are trying to bring a or a bunch of degree owners using such terms and make changes to an encyclopedic article in a manner to undermine the whole sense of it acknowledged by the vast majority of both, scholars of history and genocide. Your edits are the very bias the Turkish authorities push. In addition they are made in a manner, that if little by little performed, they are to seed doubt on the issue of the article and not to add value to the article. Once again, concider this a warning for bias pushing trying to present it as an acknowledged manner of presenting the issue (it's not the 1st time you are doing it). Aregakn (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn you are not in a position to make warnings, instead of wasting your time filing complaints against editors determined to achieve NPOV you could actually spend time improving the article.
- 1) The insinuation of genocide being coined having in mind Armenians in 1915 is a lie or a manipulation the least. Sources clearly state it was created to describe the Nazi Holocaust. How blunt can this get? Any fanciful usage of the word “genocide” to cover the Armenian period of 1915 is something applied much later and with the clear tactic to establish a connection with the victims of Nazi crimes.
- 2) The so called genocide is alleged If it is still no clear this happens to be one of the most disputed historical topics (nothing is beyond dispute here starting even with the basic fact of what was the Armenian population in Ottoman Turkey to the number of casualties varying from 300 000 to 2 500 0000). The term “alleged-genocide” is used by historians, politicians and government agencies (sources showing examples of the usage “alleged” were effectively deleted). Only some 20 countries it the world have officially recognise this as genocide and that not based solely on historical facts but via voting in national or local parliaments, some in very dubious and bizarre circumstances. Pushing a genocide resolution in some committee with only a single vote difference shows that this is all but an undisputed allegation. So you get one vote more, that makes history rewritten? What happens next time they vote and the "genocide-team" looses? Then we can again rewrite history?
The article needs to take into consideration historically disputed facts, currently it is written in such a manner indicating a single an uncontested truth. We all know this is not the case, main viewpoints of the course and nature of events need to presented. Hittit (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, your desire to advocate the bias of the Turkish state in again rewriting history is obvious. That's for sure.
- I am in the very position to warn you about bias pushing and whatever else if against the rules of Wiki, so, again, take it as a warning to be careful in this.
- To make it more clear to you and comment what you wrote:
- 1) again, your changes are changing the whole meaning of the article and are too serious to be made without a discussion
- 2) these discussions were opened (almost every year) and have the same results which you clearly haven't read.
- 3) moreover, this discussion was taking place on the talk page (once again) when you made the changes
- 4) your changes were made (breaching 1 revert rule) without having comented in the relevant talk...just like that
- 5) this kind of behavior of changing the whole meaning of the article without having it discussed and agreed on this very issue, together with the fact that you know (it is shown) your position is in minority, is a disruptive editing
- Your comments about the term are irrelevant:
- 1) as the term, shown on the talk page by documentary and by confirmation of the most reputable genocide study organisations, was inventer to describe the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.
- 2) the invention of the term was after BOTH of them taking place
- 3) what makes you think a act of genocide can be made only after the invention of the term? (a rhetoric question)
- 4) do you mean, for example, a murder isn't a murder and not a crime if the term was not invented? (an other rhetoric question)
- Your comments about the parliaments and governments of other nations that have admited what happened with Armenians was genocide are unacceptable. You can discuss it or comment them in political clubs etc but this isn't a place we are allowed to discuss and analyse facts. More importantly you fail to see that there are countries that the issue was adopted unanimously and that there were other where because of the political preasure of Turkey what you say happened. There are also other countries, like the US, that this happens already for tens f years and that similar laws are adopted but more than 1 vote overweight, as you claim it, but those cases you leave aside when even, possibly, thinking about the issue. Aregakn (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And you convinietly forget that there are over 200 soverign states in the world only some 10% have recognised or attempted to recognise a so called Armenian Genocide (and these recognitions are clearly politically based and driven by the populous Armenain diaspora worlwide - mind you their numbers having in mind claims of genocide and total obliteration). Stick to the facts the term Genocide was not coined having the Armenians in mind...Hittit (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- A very large majority of reliable and specialised historians call it a genocide. Your changes are not respecting WP:UNDUE. This has been addressed over and over in the archives. Sardur (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- And one quote on Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide: "It is essential to remember that when Raphael Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he cited the 1915 annihilation of the Armenians as a seminal example of a genocide" (Yair Auron, The banality of denial: Israel and the Armenian genocide, p.9). There are hundreds of similar quotes. Sardur (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And you continuously fail to understand: 1) that the article is not about the acceptation of the Genocide by states 2) that the so called 10% recognition BY LAW doesn't mean others DENY it.
And FYI, everybody knows the importance for politics in the region and the amount of preasure Turkey puts in prevention of recognition, so "10%" in 15 years is a "miracle" for the issue, or, to put it right, regardless miracles, the impossibility to deny it. Anyway, be careful in biased edits! Aregakn (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- lol bias edits ref: (Yair Auron, The banality of denial: Israel and the Armenian genocide, p.9) but e.g., among many others Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson The scientific investigation of mass graves pp.8 stating; The term genocide was coined todescrbe the Holocaust as the majority of sources state that Lemkin (a Polish Jew) coined the term referring to the persecution and extermination of European Jews. Later adoption by Armenians is not related to the reason how and why was the term created. It is false to state the term was coined having the Armenians in mind, basically you can then just as easily state that Lemkin was also thining of the Genocide over Native Americans when he came up with the word. You see the blunt point and importance of correct referencing? No? Hittit (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wishfull thinkings. Did you know that Lemkin himself used the word "genocide" when talking about what happened to the Armenians (exactly "genocide of the Armenians")? See Israel W. Charny, Encyclopedia of genocide, Volume 1, p.79. Sardur (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- lol bias edits ref: (Yair Auron, The banality of denial: Israel and the Armenian genocide, p.9) but e.g., among many others Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson The scientific investigation of mass graves pp.8 stating; The term genocide was coined todescrbe the Holocaust as the majority of sources state that Lemkin (a Polish Jew) coined the term referring to the persecution and extermination of European Jews. Later adoption by Armenians is not related to the reason how and why was the term created. It is false to state the term was coined having the Armenians in mind, basically you can then just as easily state that Lemkin was also thining of the Genocide over Native Americans when he came up with the word. You see the blunt point and importance of correct referencing? No? Hittit (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems as a well established fact that Lemkin first used the word “genocide” in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government. The current disputed statement in this article is as follows: “It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14] The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events[16]”. The claim in the article is that the word “genocide” was coined having also the Armenians in mind, unless a direct and a clear statement is found in Lemkin’s publication “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government” mentioning Armenians and genocide then this directly proves that Lemkin did not coin the word to describe anything relating to Armenians, othewise he would have mentioned that in the his firs genocide refrences where he mentions several ethnic groups. Reference to genocide and Armenains is seems made much later. Thus the sentece should be corrected as I have many times proppsed: The term genocide was coined todescrbe the Holocaust.Hittit (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- That should certainly not be corrected "as [you] have many times proppsed", as there are spelling mistakes in your proposal.
- But let's be serious now: what you are asking for right now is to work on a primary source, i.e. to make OR, which is not the way WP works. For the moment, the sentence is sourced by a secondary source. If you want to contest it, find a reliable and specialised source explicitely stating the opposite. Which you haven't done for the moment. Sardur (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You claim Limkin coined the word genocide and you claim he was describing the Armenians, clearly that was not the case with Limkin...maybe some one else invented the term, you want to fetch another secondary source, more bias for you? So should we now conclude that after correcting the grammar we can change this flaw in the article? Or there is a comma missing somewhere in the sentence and you would like to further protest or find a reason to stall? If you do not like referencing Limikn directly there are other sources to verify that the term was coined to describe the Holocaust so that shouldn’t be a problem either. Secondary sources: Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson "The scientific investigation of mass graves" pp.8 ^ Porpora, Douglas V. How Holocausts Happen Temple University Press, 1990 pp.118. BTW you deleted these from the article before didn't you? Hittit (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did I see you quoting a reliable and specialised source? No. What else? Sardur (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This matter seems more than clear:
- 1) Original source by Limkin shows clearly no connection to the first usage of the term “genocide” and Armenians, therefore Limkin should not be quoted as saying “The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events" (Linking Jews and Armenians in this sense is false and manipulating, I think Limkin mentions Serbs but no Armenians).Either this sentence should be removed or corrected to clearly stating that the “word” genocide” was coined to describe the Holocaust and later also adopted to refer to the Armenians (it was not coined to describe this event by Limkin since it is not mentioned in the firs official usage of the word).
- 2) The provided secondary sources are more than specialised focusing primarily on the scientific investigation of mass graves, mass murder and Halocaust. If these are not specialised sources then nothing is. I am sorry I could not find any suitable Christian Missionary who actually did see something for quotation (you can find those clowns quoted in the current article).I am sure that would have been suitable for you.Hittit (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do mind WP:CIV and remember you have been warned.
- None of the sources you have provided so far have been written by genocide scholars recognised by their peers. And none of them explicitely states the opposite of what is mentioned in the article (i.e. something like "not coined to describe the Armenian Genocide"). Sardur (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- For those, who see not well, read not well, lack some more attention, than needed, or a will to "click" I recommend once more to have this downloaded and heared to know WHAT and HOW Lemkin qualifies the subject of this article: [3]
- I promice not to give a thing for any comments or denial of Lemkin not having invented the term "GENOCIDE" to qualify the Armenian Massacres. AND SO I RECOMMEND OTHERS. Aregakn (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The matter is when and for what purpose was the term “genocide” coined. It is an undisputed fact that that Lemkin first coined the term “genocide” in his publication “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government” in 1944. In this publication the terms is solely used to describe Nazi crimes against the Jews and some other ethic groups. There is no mentioning of Armenians in this point. Any referral at a later stage to “genocide” and Armenians is something post factum. Based on these facts one cannot claim the term genocide was coined and first use to the describe Armenians. As such the current statement in the article claiming otherwise is false and should be corrected.Hittit (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Israel's position
Should the article have a more thorough discussion of the role of Israel in preventing the U.S. from officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide for so many years. I read an article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=170394&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) that points out precisely this, so don't brand me an anti-Semite. Ndriley97 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- We don't brand you anti-Semite. Israel have a tradition of elevating the Jewish Genocide during the WWII to be something extraordinary, a position that is not shared by all historicians. I personally am undecided for lack of knowledge of detail. Since the political reactions of the topic is dealt with in the section Contemporaneous reports and reactions with painstaking detail, the source belongs to there. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reading it: the source is too weak! It alleges lefthandedly in a side comment. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
history of the term genocide
Lemkin did not coin the term genocide to refer to this incident. it was first used in 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation' to describe the holocaust. He used the terms barbarity and vandalism to describe the Armenian genocide and those terms did not morph into the term genocide until after his family was killed under Nazi occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You certainly lack knowledge then. Read other references discussions and you shall find what exactly he said. Aregakn (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Curiosity About Facts & Figures
As a wikifan, i didn't change or add something in the page, mainly, because i don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject. But, there are many items which i feel 'uncomfortable' about the article.... -Motivation part is missing, altough it is a fact that there were pogroms against the Armenians, before WWI, effects of Armenian nationalism and revolts are not taken into account.... -Peak point for the genocide Diaspora is considered as 1915-1916, but all mentioned genocide Diaspora accounts are from east regions of present day Turkey, if it is a campaign of extermination against Armenians fueled by nationalist hatred, why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?.... -Van Resistance chapter conflicts with military history chronicles. Generally, it is considered that, when it was clear that, Imperial Russian Army was to capture Van in a few days, already organized groups like Dashnaks, revolted and they had gained the control of the city, the city was captured by Russians and Armenian units attached, on the 16th day of the revolt.... -Ottoman Government's decision of displacing Armenian citizens to southern parts of the country, seems reasonable, if you look from an administrative and military point of view (not humanitarian).... -Capacity of Ottoman Army to relocate huge numbers of civilians has to be discussed, please note that 1915 is the year that, Ottoman armies were fighting in Gallipoli with around 300.000 casualties, in Iraq with around 100.000 casualties, in Sarikamis with around 100.000 casualties, also, in Sinai and Palestine against British and was conducting a war in Yemen and Arabia against Arab rebels. Actual figures of Ottoman military presence has to be included in the article, it makes the distinction of 'massacre' and 'genocide'. If you consider the 1927 census of Turkey was 13.6 millions, i have doubts about how much manpower Ottoman Army could field for an organized genocide.... -Transportation system of Ottoman Empire has to be mentioned, without any railways available, displacing huge numbers of civilian without adequate food, water supplies, means of transportation and with very poor protection against gangs (eastern regions of Anatolia had lawless gangs even until 1960-1970 period), clearly would turn to 'death marches'.... -Relocating Armenian civilian population in the deserts of Syria caused definitly a disaster, considering the Ottoman Empire was at the brink of collapse and even couldn't feed, dress and equip their own armies.... Ottomans, served well for the Germans, by opening a new front against Russia in the Caucasus region, so the Russia could not use valuable resources against Germanny in the Eastern Front, but this, combined with Armenian desire for self-governing, like Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians had previously managed, resulted with huge losses of Armenian civilians.... Those events are not well documented as Holocaust (Germans were definitly better with archiving then the Ottomans), the losses and sufferings are beyond discussion, but, the main notion to call the events as 'Genocide', is debated and will be debated.... For wikipedia, as an open source, it is very difficult to maintain an article, disputed so much, but i propose to add above mentioned headlines as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.42.16.43 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You write "I don't feel that i have enough knowledge about the subject", then write lots more that prove that assertion to be true! Meowy 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- He actually knows what he is talking about and is just being modest. Nobody has enough knowledge about the subject (no documents exist that prove the genocide, memoirs of naim bey were lost by europeans), that's exactly why the genocide is disputed and unless somehow conclusive proof emerges for either recognition or denial, people will continue to dispute it. Everything he mentioned are valid arguments also used by various scholars. These are all issues/arguments that should have a place in the genocide article itself not on the denial page. Failing to mention these arguments, not having a denial section and even deleting these arguments when it is added by others because "it belongs in the armenian genocide denial article" violates POV_fork rule as QWL pointed out here [4]. I know this is the main article itself and not a fork but by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide article and banishing everything to the armenian genocide denial page you violated POV_fork rule. It is almost the same thing as creating a fork because they either created the denial article themselves so they could push their POV on the armenian genocide article or they basically forced others to create it by not allowing denial/doubt views on the armenian genocide article.
- A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
- It is clear, I think, that the armenian genocide article doesn't represent all facts and major Points of View on the genocide and should be drastically rewritten. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I am not a denialist by the way, I simply don't think there is conclusive proof the ottoman government ordered armenian civilians to be attacked. Talat pasha even said in his documents that he wanted to punish those who were responsible for attacking the armenian civilians. That is a big contrast with the nazi's who were proud of their racist doctrine and even at the nuremberg trials didn't change their mind. Talat pasha was known as a courageous man and I don't believe he would have denied the genocide if he really was responsible for it. Talat pasha was respected by the armenians before the war and has never shown any sign of racism/religious extremism. None of the young turks were racists or religious fanatics. The young turks were even co-founded by jews, greeks and armenians and were secular. I don't understand how when the war started these persons could so drastically change that they would want to exterminate the whole armenian race when they had been friends and colleagues with them before the war. War crimes were committed (also against turks in western regions and crimea) but that doesn't automatically mean the ottoman government ordered them. Most attacks were committed by local militia's, bandits, and scared villagers who with the fear of the approaching russian army took out all their stress on the armenians who they saw as collaborators with the enemy. I also doubt that the majority of the armenians who died, died of violence. I have seen the pictures of children and corspses on armeniapedia.org (it made me sick) and they were all extremely undernourished. I think most died as a result of the circumstances of the war. They might also have been killed by bandits, militia's, angry/scared mobs or even by ottoman soldiers. I really don't know. I only think that there should be conclusive proof before you recognize/accept such an accusation as the armenian genocide. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you have such a high opinion of Talat, Ibrahim4048, then I suppose you will believe his own writings. The self-confessed ill-informed anon who started this thread asked "why Armenians in west and central parts of Anatolia are not effected by this campaign?". Talaat's own figures (cited here http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/Black-Book.pdf) for some vilayets (provinces), all of them in the western or central parts of Anatolia. Ankara - 1914 population: 44,661 Armenians, by 1917, 31,895 of them were deported. Izmit - 1914 population: 56,115 Armenians, by 1917 52,235 of them were deported. Kayseri - 1914 population: 47,947, by 1917 41,324 of them were deported. Sivas - 1914 population: 141,000 Armenians, by 1917 132,903 of them were deported. BTW, Talat's 1914 population figures seem small. For example, in all other sources the Armenian population of Sivas vilayet ranges from between 152,000 to 200,000. Meowy 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just for curiosity. Is there a specific reason why armenians reject to leave the subject to historians? It doesn't make sense to me when all armenian arguments are based on unofficial data such as photos and diaries, which we don't know if they are real or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabalgasun (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL @ the above comment. Why don't they leave it to historians (holocaust deniers) to deny it for them instead of using their silly primary evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gruder (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I possibly won't debate or contribute to the article much. And I don't care much what you call hundreds of thousands civilians death since it is a great loss and tragedy already. As long as I know estimated realistic numbers of Armenian casualties were at least 300.000 and might be 500.000 which means a terrible massacre even if it is death by cold in winter, hunger or bullet. Rest are possibly forced conversions or such. The transportation system were bad it is true lots of Turkish people died on ships while exchange through Greece in later years too, during war food were not plenty, it was winter, armenians didn't protected well, ... but again that all don't justify such hundreds of thousands citizens' "death march" intentionally-unintentionally or half-intentionally. On the other hand, though it doesn't justify for such a big casualty or forced deportations, Armenian gangs also massacred a huge number of Turkish-Kurdish civilians in the area which is another undeniable fact. Article seems not depicting such events at least by a quick check if I am not mistaken. If I missed such a section just point it out for me. If the article not contains such balancing info it cannot be considered as an WP:NPOV article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first who opened a sensless talk I shall remind:
- BTW, as examples and some reasoning:
- 1. The Armenians in the west and everywhere were effected. For instance the 1915 the beheaded Armenian Elite wasn't living in the East only but mainly in Constantinople.
- 2. The motivation is a thing to be long discussed and can't be proven as, for instance, can't be explained for sure what the real motivation of the Holocaust, as it's obvious, that the understanding of "wrong race" is total crap, was. Your request to have it in the article seems to aim at undermining it's neutrality and push for POVs to dominate with all future consequences for the article.
- 3. You have already mentioned the reason of hatred yourself so what else do you want to know? Go to the books and links if u wish to know more of possible reasons, like economy etc. You will surely find interesting info for yourself.
- But once again, for those who ignore the warnings, this is not a forum to discuss the Genocide!
- Aregakn (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a place to discuss the inaccuracies of an article. Even if it's not why are you discussing it yourself? Are you incapable of understanding your own arguments?
- 1) The Armenian population of the Western provinces were in fact unaffected which numbered around 300 thousand. Only a fraction of these, less than 3 thousand who were accused to be conspiring against the state, were arrested.
- 2) You talk of neutrality and POV when the article uses forged documents as if they were real to support the genocide claim. At least have the decency of not talking about neutrality or POV if you're going to be so hypocritical.
- You talk so much for someone claiming that this place is not a forum. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This is my first time adding to a forum, so apologies if I'm going about it incorrectly. This is a response to the comment up above about Talaat Pasha not being involved. In an interview with a journalist sympathetic with the Turkish government, Enver Pasha (not Talaat, that is true, but I doubt one was involved without the other, and Enver uses "we") replied to a question that implied he had little to do with the planning of the massacre. "You are greatly mistaken," he said. "We have this country absolutely under control. I have no desire to shift the blame on our underling and I am entirely willing to accept the responsibility myself for everything that has taken place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.27.69 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I want to note for you, TheDarkLordSeth, that your comments about my capabilities and "how much I talk" are insults and that I hope this will be the first and the last time as well as I am expecting apologies and constructive dialogue instead of attacks. Hope this is clear! Aregakn (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Consider it an insult as much as you want as it would only be a pathetic attempt of an argument. If you have any concrete thing to say, say it. If you don't then you can't simply call other peoples criticism of your posts as an insult. If you have anything sound to say than that would be a constructive dialogue. At first you say and even put a sign about how it's not a place to discuss and then continue to be a part of the discussion. I have every right to question your abilities as you can't even realize the meaning of the sign you put yourself. Please refrain yourself from making such foul comments in the future. Consider yourself warned, if you want. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not say I consider them insults. I said thy ARE insults and there cannot be a 2nd thought about it as it is obvious. If you continue insulting, attacking and negatively comenting the editors I'd suggest you to read more of the rules.
- No, you do not have a single right to comment any of the users in such way and if you do it is even bad for you, as you shall not be considered somebody serious to make discussions with. If you wish to be perceived seriously you shall be considered as such by your value-creating actions and not insults. Aregakn (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Message of Thanks To The Editors
Hi - I read a lot about world history, especially conflict situations like Cyprus, The Holocaust, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia etc. I often find the talk pages more interesting than the articles, because you get a sense of the underlying debates. It's also common to see aggressive & partisan editing being contained by small teams of patient, fair & ethical volunteers. As a wikireader, I wish to thank Meowy, THOTH, VartanM & The Myotis for their work on this page. Well done!
Ararat, The Film
I saw on the "Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor" shows that under "Later Assessments" that "The Armenian Genocide is the subject of a 2002 film, Ararat, by Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan." is proposed. I would like to see this line above the Contents box, because it is the highest profile of art that help shed some light on this topic for the masses. For most of us we don't have the time to read deeply on all that we want to learn :-/ but by putting this reference high up in the article it can be a reference point for those of use who read in summary, but tend to watch TV & Film more often then read books etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSpittel (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
leaving history to historians
Justin A. McCarthy is an American demographer, professor of history at the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky. McCarthy does not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but claims that millions of Muslims [1] in the region were also massacred in this period and many in the hands Armenian insurgents and milita.[2] He has contended that all of those deaths during World War One were the product of intercommunal warfare between Muslims and Armenians, famine and disease, and did not involve an intent or a policy to commit genocide by the Ottoman Empire. McCarthy has been active in disseminating the results of his work and analysis, that Ottomans never had a policy of genocide, through books, articles, conferences, and interviews.[3] This has made him a target of much criticism from mainly strong Armenian diaspora organizations and historians. He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the Armenian Genocide in 2006.[4]
^ McCarthy, Justin Let the Historians Decide, Ermeni Arastirmalari, volume 1, Ankara 2001. ^ McCarthy, Justin Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Darwin Press, Incorporated, 1996, ISBN 0-87850-094-4 ^ Jaschik, Scott (October 22 2007). "Genocide Deniers". http://hnn.us/articles/43861.html. ^ "A PBS Documentary Makes Its Case for the Armenian Genocide, With or Without a Debate". New York Times. 2006-04-17. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/arts/television/17stan.html?ex=1302926400&en=42703f4960edef66&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Retrieved 2006-09-02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.157.11 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
H. Morgenthau and Admiral Mark L. Bristol
Is there a reason why Mark L. Bristol is not mentioned in this article? He was the successor of Henry Morgenthau and discredited Morgenthaus remarks about the incidents. Here is the link to one of his letters to urge the circulation of false Armenian reports: [5] It's weird to see how Henry Morgenthau is mentioned a lot in this article but Mark L. Bristol is not at all. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Bristol didn't really "discredit" anything. Although he held anti-Armenian views and pushed for a very pro-Turkish economic policy for the United States in the years immediately following the end of World War I and the creation of modern Turkey, he nevertheless is now considered an important figure for the study of US policy regarding the Armenian Genocide after it took place. According to one recent comment by historian Levon Marashlian, Bristol "fully accepted the fact that Turks massacred Armenians on a large scale." [6]. That seems quite in keeping with what Morgenthau had been saying for years. Thanks for bringing it up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you care to read the link I provided you'd see that you're wrong, though I'm sorry that the letter is very wrong. Bristol hated both Turks and Armenians. He was both anti-Armenian and anti-Turk. You can see this clearly in his letter. Also pardon me for doubting what you say completely because you just gave quote from a conference about 30 years ago a recent comment. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the response of James L. Barton to Admiral's letter. You can simply skim through the letters and see that neither has any love towards Armenians or Turks. [7] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your links are just crude, empty propaganda, sponsored by the Republic of Turkey's government - if you haven't noticed but there are currently over 200 citations on this article and the mere notion that Bristol challenged Morgenthau's account (which he seemingly doesn't) does not in any way disprove the fact that a genocide took place. Bristol was very prejudiced, correct, but in that link I provided, he does admit that his feelings lie more with the Turks than anyone else. We're not going to suddenly change the name of the article to "Soezde Ermeni Soyqirimi" all because of this revelation, so please find something more practical to do.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did I say that I want the title changed? What's up with this Armenians habit of creating arguments that does not exist? The links I gave has the unedited versions of two letters that very clearly shows that Armenians have been creating false reports. You say that Bristol is biased because he chose Turks but disregard the fact that Morgenthau was trying to pull USA into the war and used Armenians to do so. Simply admit that you don't want any proof that contradicts the genocide claims. Some of those 200 citations that you say this article has uses documents that are proven to be forgery. What do you say to that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Study of the Armenian Genocide
This section claims that the number claimed by the Turkish argument is that only 100 thousand Armenians died as a part of this issue. This is wrong. The official position of Turkey can be seen here: [8] The consensus is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died.
This section hardly has any information on the study of the "Armenian Genocide" I would edit it myself but I'd just be labeled as a Turkish nationalist dog. So I will give some time for people to discuss it here and then I will edit it. If anyone objects the edit please first discuss here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- 100,000; 300,000; 600,000...the numbers have always fluctuated up or down over the decades (they still do). What is important here is not that Turkey rejects that those killings were part of an organized attempt to systematically annihilate the Armenians. We can revise that figure for the sake of clarifying Turkey's current position, of course. That section, however, requires extensive editing and for anyone who has the time, I would advise they check out the essays from this book, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide [9], to stand on a more firmer footing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion here is not about how many of them died but what the Turks claim. The claim is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died. The position of Turkey didn't really ever change. The link I provided shows the claim by Turkish arguments. The number of dead Armenians fluctuated from 800 thousand to 2.5 million by genocide claimers. Turkey's position have never changed which is reflected in this section inaccurately. There is no reason to check a potentially biased Armenians source to find out what number the Turkish argument claims. I repeat right now I'm not arguing about how many died or not but the claim by Turkish argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The "genocide claimers"? Please avoid using that language. Well, of course the figures fluctuated on the Armenian side - how on earth do you calculate the deaths of so many people when the post-war conditions did not allow for a proper count to be taken? And yes, the Turkish government has revised its figures numerous times - they go up, they go down, they stay the same, but it's largely unimportant here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am tolerating you calling them genocide so you can tolerate my cynicism. Armenian numbers fluctuating is not an argument here. I'm not discussing that. What I'm discussing is the Turkish argument. Yes you will find some nut job Turkish ignorant politicians who behaves like Armenians never existed but they're usually some low level politician begging for media attention to gather votes which they usually fail miserably. I have never seen any Turkish scholar or government official stance that the number of dead Armenian were no less than 500 thousand or more than 700 thousand. The 100 thousand number that the this section suggests is certainly a non existing argument. Every detail of this article matters. Otherwise you can just delete everything and write "Turks butchered Armenians". So, I urge anyone to find a source for the 100 thousand argument from reliable sources because I personally could not or I will edit this section in time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
MarshallBagramyan, I will report you if you continue to alter my edit. You allegation that they're cosmetic is completely unreal. You're trying to portray Turks as worst as possible by twisting reality. Please refrain from such foul acts in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning ASALA
The terrorist organization and it's assassinations should be mentioned in the Controversies section. It is a part of the Armenian issue. The article remains one-sided as it includes any kind of negative event or quote from Turkey while ignores anything at all from the Armenian side. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- ASALA can be mentioned as one of the Armenian Diaspora's reactions to Turkey's strenuous denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it is inserted, it must be placed in full context on why Armenians resorted to violent measures (they did so because they saw demonstrations and peaceful measures were largely being ignored by the rest of the world). This article is not written to cater to any side DarkLordSeth. The Holocaust article is not going to give equal airtime to both the Nazis and its victims. Although you're not trying that hard, it's obvious you're trying to obfuscate the facts - a genocide took place, and you must accept that whether your choose to or not. This is getting repetitive - the sources are overwhelmingly clear so please give this up charade of trying to "balance" out the article by giving equal weight to the voice of perpetrator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Be careful there. You're indirectly implying that terrorist activities can be justified. I'm sure if Al Queda or Hamas was the terrorist organization here you would never approach them in such a manner. ASALA is a tool that Armenians used to get Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian Genocide through fear. It has everything to do with this article. I could only obfuscate facts if I saw any. This is an article that uses so called evidences that are proven to be forgeries and yet present it's contents as facts, i.e. The Memoirs of Naim Bey a.k.a. Talat Pasha Telegrams. I'm sorry but I can't take this claim that these evidences are overwhelming when so many of them are so far away from being facts. I give you some credit though as believing in this lie for so long that your only option is to simply ignore any kind of acts that would undermine such an important issue for you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You have absolutely no right to interpret nor comment on my beliefs and opinions in such a manner - comment on the content of this article or don't do it at all. With that said, I'm no longer going to waste my time with your rabble-rousing. The Armenian Genocide is a fact and any attempts to insert doubt in this article by using weasel wording (like that the tired phrase "so-called"), inserting dubious government propaganda, and works written by fringe scholars, have absolutely no place here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Same goes for you and that's exactly what I said. Please don't be double-faced next time. Rules apply to both of us. I'm not saying we should use the phrase "so-called" in the article and I've never used it as an edit in this article and never would. It clearly suggests a disbelief in the matter. I have always heard this "dubious government propaganda and works written by fringe scholars" but yet to see any evidence showing it so. It's simply a pathetic argument. You have already labeled everything I present as government propaganda or fringe scholars yet I haven't presented any source that is tied to the Turkish government or any kind of scholar. I just put a link of a letter from American authorities and you labeled it as government propaganda and fringe scholar. This is why it's really pathetic. Your argument is not even consistent with your accusations. On the other hand you have absolutely no trouble with alleged evidences that are proven to be forgery existing in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Historical Neutrality
A reasonable question which is never addressed iin the article s why, if the Turks really intended to commit genocide against the Armenian minority, they decided not to kill them on the spot but instead chose to expend vast resources they could little afford during wartime conditions and ship them 800 miles away to Syria, then kill them. Since this seems to support the Turkish claim that the Armenian deaths were the result of the displacement process rather than systemic genocide, the article should deal with it.
Also, all the evidence of Christian Armenian collusion with Christian Russians against Muslim Turks is presented as a mere assertion -- "X claimed/ X said" -- by Turkish officials, even though historians do not dispute that this traitorous action was real. Armenian action blocking Turkish supply routes through narrow mountain passes caused numerous deaths in the Turkish Army, and the displacement of a hostile, Christian, Armenian minority away from the battle front could be seen as a reasonable response to this hostile action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire conscripted in the Ottoman Army (and swiftly disarmed, forced into labor battalions, and soon thereafter killed). It shouldn't be a surprise that Armenians living in the Russian Empire similarly conscripted in the Russian Army. So you shouldn't be confusing the two sides. With regards to your "reasonable" question, it seems that it's cheaper to have 1.5 million people walk in circles in mountains and deserts than to expend 1.5 million bullets and then also have to deal with the corpses. Further, the presence of American and other foreign missionaries in the provinces required that the government send the population out to be killed on grounds of "deportation." This way, the government can claim that their citizens died "unfortunate" deaths that they could not have prevented due to lack of resources. What were they doing in the desert heat anyway! It's a clear plan of creating a situation that creates forced death on the population. Serouj (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Any way you look at it, killing people with bullets is infinitely less expensive than the massive logistical effort involved in transporting an entire population 800 miles to the West -- and this at a time when wartime conditions demanded extremely conservative use of resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you're very inaccurate. There are extensive reports from French, German and Ottoman reports that the destination of the Armenians were on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates. The reports talk about Armenians settling in and starting to conduct their business. The population rise in Syria and Iraq amounting to 500 thousand Armenians can also be found in Ottoman, French and British statistics. There are also records of numerous orders from Ottoman high command to help Armenians on their journey as much as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. You don't need to tell me. My grandfather's father and older brother were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and never returned. My grandfather, his mother, and his younger sister were all condemned to death because they were Armenian Apostolics. The Armenian Protestants were to be spared because of the presence of local American Protestant missionaries. Due to the quick-thinking of my grandfather's mother, as the Turkish gendarme had his back turned, she quicky slid into the crowd of the Armenian Protestants. So please spare what you "read" in statistics. Armenians "settling in and conducting business"? By the time my grandfather and younger sister reached Syria, they were ORPHANS! And they weren't the only ones -- there were thousands like them, with neither mother nor father. Is that what you call "settling in and conducting their business?" Serouj (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that this entire section is off-topic and should be removed. Talk pages are not intended to be message boards for personal opinions and essay writing. Though sometimes a minor article with a little-used talk page can benefit from such stuff, this is not such a case. This article's completely unusable 19-page talk archive might have been a usable 5-page one if all the off-topic rubbish had been cut from it! I wish those that has initially responded to this "leave it to the historians" posting had instead erased it on sight. Meowy 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop this crusade of censoring this article according to your beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is a case of extreme falsification
Armenian crimes conducted during the Russia occupation of Eastern Turkey and the mass extermination of the local Muslim and Turkish population is not mentioned with a single word. Strange that people claiming to have been victims of genocide have colonies of 8 million Armenians around the world where according to their theories there should not be a singe Armenian left after 1915.Hittit (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually an article from The Nation suggests that when you add all the incidents you have 35 million Armenians killed. [10] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The total population of the Ottoman Empire in 1897 was 19,050,307 (History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2 By Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel K. Shaw pp.240). Armenians numbered just 1 million in 1987, in 1906 it stood at 1,1 million and in 1914 at 1,3 million. By this any suggestion or insinuation of the killing of 2 000 000 Armenians in Ottoman Turkey is not just a lie but shear impossibility. Not did only the population not decline but it in increased +30% in under 20 years. This would hardly be the effect of mass killings.
Assuming that 1,3 million were killed (virtually all exterminated in 1915) would make it impossible to have 8 million Armenians today, even if 500 000 were killed you could not have 8 million Armenians today since this would mean that the Armenian rate of population increase would surpass the population increase of any nation known today on the face of the earth.Hittit (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly you have no idea of Armenian history, so don't talk. There were Armenians living in the RUSSIAN Empire, too -- part of historical Armenia at the time was under Russian rule. The first republic of Armenia had 800,000 Armenians, about 300,000 of whom were from the other side of the border. And yes, Armenian under the Soviet Union experienced a rapid population growth, as did the survivors in the rest of the Middle East. Some psychologists think that the trauma of the Genocide prompted them to reproduce to make up for their lost ones. Serouj (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems you would like very much so if there was no talk or research on the issue. The sheer lunacy of these genocide claims requires rigorous investigation and provision of concrete evidence. You cannot build a genocide case based on “your word” or what your senile grand mother told or an alleged “traumatic” reproduction frenzy achieving an over 1000% population growth. Are you now saying that fragments of Armenians living in Russia were the main reproduction catapult to achieve the current figure of app. 8 million? How do you explain that 6 out 8 million Armenians live outside Russia and thus are the very descendants of Ottoman Armenians? achieving 6 million would be the normal population growth comparing to other former Ottoman colonies such as Bulgaria and Greece only if the base figure is 1,5 million (or higher) any less than this would suggest long term hormonal treatment to substantially increase Armenian female fertility and capability to bear children. Furthermore, not to mention that pictures of alleged Armenian refugees have also turned out to be actually fleeing Muslims, fabrication of documentation is also more the rule than the exception e.g.., virtually no validated Ottoman documentation (origins if any such later produced are in high doubt) of attempted and intended extermination. Having in mind that Ottoman Archives contains over 11 000 documents on the issue “genocide” researchers have not bother to make any examination of these. Armenian and Russia keep closed their own archives on the subject; most reports of allegations are based on Christian Missionaries highly operational in the area during WW1 or 3rd party accounts as these were in the same fashion instrumental for the propaganda war prior to the Turco-Russian War 1877-1878. Classic “weapons of mass-destruction” scenario paving the way of any major war. Not much has changed in terms of military propaganda since the 19th century.Hittit (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Serouj (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is all off-topic and should be removed. I will remove it unless I see valid objections. Meowy 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a discussion regarding the inaccuracy of this article thus in-topic. I will report you if you erase it as you're simply trying to censor this article according to your own beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- No it is not. You and hittite are using this talk page as a platform for you to pursue your discredited agenda (an agenda that has been explored here and discredited here many times in the past) and to post OR and off-topic "Armenian crimes" comments. Talk pages are intended for discussion aimed at improving specific points in the article. They are not platforms for personal essays or personalised rants. This thread has no useful purpose in improving the article. Meowy 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is laughable. You claim that their claim is personal agenda and they try to push it here, yet they can prove that some documents used in this article are forgeries. Whats up with that? And stop feeding the trolls? What's that? Avoiding a discussion because it becomes to hard to handle? --90.29.127.95 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- No it is not. You and hittite are using this talk page as a platform for you to pursue your discredited agenda (an agenda that has been explored here and discredited here many times in the past) and to post OR and off-topic "Armenian crimes" comments. Talk pages are intended for discussion aimed at improving specific points in the article. They are not platforms for personal essays or personalised rants. This thread has no useful purpose in improving the article. Meowy 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a discussion regarding the inaccuracy of this article thus in-topic. I will report you if you erase it as you're simply trying to censor this article according to your own beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is all off-topic and should be removed. I will remove it unless I see valid objections. Meowy 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are not using any kind of agenda and it haven't been discredited. I'm pointing out factual errors in this article. The article even uses documents that are proven to be forgeries. If that's your sense of credibility, accuracy and informing then it's actually you who is trying to push his agenda and I need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only did the Armenian population increase in Ottoman Turkey between 1887 and 1914 with 30% but some Turkish born Armenians such Calouste Gulbenkian made an immense fortune ripping-off the Ottoman Government in the very years Armenians are claimed to have been mass killed.Hittit (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Calouste Gulbenkian got his 5 per cent from the consortium of European Oil Companies and not from the Turkish government (and for good reason, he earned it). Claiming that he ripped-off the Ottoman government is wishful thinking. Nobody is "claiming" that there were mass killings. The mass killings happened and are well documented by far more scholars than claim or allege otherwise. Turkey's mass killings of Christians were not isolated to the First World War either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Armenian Casulties
Another factual error in this article is that the article claims without citation that the Turkish state claims that the casualties were around 300 thousand which is once again wrong. The Turkish state claims that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians have died. [11] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
American Recognition
I heard on the news that the United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as an actual genocide, causing Turkey to remove their ambassador. It was never repeated. Is it actually true that the United States recognized the genocide and is it worth mentioning on the article? 71.129.63.227 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- The cross-party U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs has just approved a resolution that calls the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I a genocide, and has recommended that the resolution be passed by the entire House of Congress. Given that President Obama before his election called the Armenian Genocide a genocide, and given that he seems to be resorting to playing the do-the-right-thing moral-high-ground card for certain other legislation, it is politically difficult for him to oppose this resolution - so it has a better than normal chance of passing. That is the reason for the recent flood of propagandistic postings onto this talk page. Just as the propaganda has no place on this talk page, I think mention of the resolution has doubtful place in the article. This already overly-long and all-but-unusable article is about the Armenian Genocide, not about resolutions that commemorate it. It should have a mention in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide though - the only reason the resolution is notable (and the main reason it exists at all) is because of Turkish opposition to it and the word genocide. Meowy 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Meowy, please keep your own propaganda and lies to yourself. It's completely pathetic of you to call us propagandists. Just show how butt-hurt you get when confronted by your own lies. Please refrain yourself from acting so pathetic in the future. On the bill issue, Obama issued a statement for the House not to accept it. It's not the first time that it was accepted, I think. It simply has zero meaning as it doesn't mean a bit that the United States have accepted the genocide claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- What happened is that a US Congressional panel ruled that it was a genocide. In reaction, the Turkish government, "recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and says it is considering other responses."[12] The White House, however, has vowed to prevent the issue being the subject of a full Congressional vote.[13] Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting study
I am not interested in the details here, but given what the news says, I wonder what the Turkish Wikipedia version of this page is like. I wonder how it differs from the English (and if there is an Armenian) version. I don't read Turkish and can not be bothered to run the page through Google translate, but if someone with high emotions (say like 4,000 people out there) would like to translate that and comment on the differences it wll make an interesting study in "cross cultural Wikipedia" and may be the beginning of a new field. Another example would be to compare the Japanese and Korean versions of specific periods in history. Then Wikipages will begin to make history by starting a new field. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Turkish page is more neutral on the subject as it doesn't take any side. It simply shows the views of the different sides and gives sources from both sides without reaching a conclusion as it should be. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what neutral means these days, but the Turkish version does seem to use the term genocide as well. However, looking across French, German, Spanish and Italian versions will also make an interesting comparison. The German version does not include "a single photo" of a person, dead or alive, and just uses maps. It does, however discuss details. The Spanish version, on the other hand starts with dramatic photos of dying children, and its content is similar to the French, English and Italian versions. The Russian version has only one photo, and seems brief - but I do not read Russian. By the way, the Turkish version reproduces the July 16 Telegram twice. I am not sure why it needs it twice. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, to me an article is not neutral if it uses forged evidence as if they were real to support an argument, as in this English version. The amount of content on the articles depends on how many Armenians involved in editing. As you can see from the English version it's dominated by Armenians and they hardly let any edit that go against their own arguments. The question is should Wikipedia really take a side in such articles and not care to ignore or twist the other side of the argument? We can of course not expect every version article to be identical to each other. I'm not sure what you mean by the Russian version but it has multiple pictures with a not that short of an article. Check it here: [14] The reproduction of the telegram picture is most likely to be due to different people editing. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You should do that analysis on the Jewish Holocaust before attempting to do it on the Armenian Genocide. I just would like to see how far you get with it. We appear to be forever pussyfooting around the sensibilities of Germans and Turks. Why do the victims have to pussyfoot? btw I am not Armenian but my entire family has been persecuted by Germans and Turks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have an entire book collection that says otherwise and all from independent sources. Judging by the number of denialists I am going to need it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Denialists? The correct term is exposing the truth, this so called genocide is nothing more than the Weapons of Mass Destruction for which the evidence was presented in the UN and used as a pretext to attack Iraq. I bet in 20 years time when an American shoolchild is asked why did the US attack Iraq the answer would be because Iraq had WMD and was going to use them. Here we are almoust 100 years after the Allied attack agains Turkey during the WWI and we are still debating war propaganda.Hittit (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nipsonanomhmata, I would recommend you to check your sources again. Most of the studies are based on other Armenian scholars. So one study by an Armenian is usually multiplied without any addition or original research by many Armenian or "Western" historians. On the other hand if you actually check non-Turkish historians who have an expertise on some aspect of the Ottoman history the result you get is much different. As there are no real evidence, the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI like the Blue Book or documents that have been proven to be forgeries like The Memoirs of Naim Bey as evidence which I'm sure your books also have them as divine truth when they're nothing but garbage. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No Armenian scholars in my collection. Just foreign nationals. However, the Blue Book is a bonafide source that's the real deal. If you read what I have added about the Blue Book you will find out why. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where did you added about the Blue Book?
- The Blue Book is a well accepted propaganda work of disinformation. It is even labeled as "a disinformation book favoring the Allied states and aiming at shaping the public opinion, which does not go beyond the obsessive task of humiliating the Turks." by William Hardy McNeill who wrote the biography of Arnold J. Toynbee, author of the Blue Book. The Blue Book was not even regarded as a evidence in Malta Tribunals. I don't understand how some people still utilize such false documents as proof. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- TheDarkLordSeth, this is a second note of you insulting other editors and now on national bases: "I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do as they have no evidence to back them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)". Please pay attention! Aregakn (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- So calling someone a Greek is an insult? The only insult here is the one you just made by labeling the word Greek as an insult. Get real! TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your word-play has no sense. You clearly called Greeks and some other nations, you had in your mind, liars, as, in your words, they have no proofs, and that they are "pussyfooting" and victimising themselves baselessly. I'll let you know, that this kind of nationalistic and racist behavior is not tolerated in Wikipedia so restrain yourself from such comments and insults on whole nations. Aregakn (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, I only made an assumption. It's actually you who identify it with an insult. It's a rather pathetic attempt. As I see from you and others here Wiki allows everything these days. Please refrain from making such foul comments in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you made either an assumption and/or a comment (a negative one) and that very comment is based on national belonging, and this puts you where I told already. Keep in mind, that ethnic or racial comments or assumptions are and will not be tolerated. And then your other comments in the last message have no value-adding, as quite often. Aregakn (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your attempt to label what I said as an insult is simply pathetic. No discussion needed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[tabbing over to the left to save space] Back to the historical point of the Blue Book. The Republic of Turkey recently asked the British government to renounce the Blue Book. Unfortunately for Turkey the British government not only denied the request the government firmly stood by the Blue Book as accurate historical testimony. If anyone has anything to say against the Blue Book I would like to hear from you here. Referenced sources only from independent sources only (no Turkish, Armenian, Assyrian or Greek sources). There are numerous Turkish scholars/sources that attempt to discredit the Blue Book by claiming that the testimony was falsified. Their reasoning is that the names of the eye-witness testimonies were with held, because they were still living in the Ottoman Empire and they feared reprisals, however, their names were published independently shortly after the Blue Book was published. More recently an uncensored edition has been published that has integrated the original Blue Book with the names of the eye-witnesses, but it is the identical/same testimony and witnesses that were published shortly after the original events. btw what did you people do to the three paragraph section about the "Blue Book" in this article about the Armenian Genocide? It has completely disappeared. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You may find this book useful: [15].
- It addresses a lot of documents utilized by genocide claimers as well as the blue book. Apparently Blue Book is only based on personal accounts. Even if all of them are true it doesn't go beyond the point of proving anarchy in the region. Does Blue Book suggests with proofs that Ottoman government ordered the killings? Can you please give links to specific examples if the book is available online?
- Also when you say independent sources do you mean the articles itself or the place they're published? For example the ATAA website has many articles and documents by foreign scholars or resources.
- Certain edits are deleted by IP users. I got some of mine deleted too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't read the Uncensored Blue Book. There is clear testimony that proves without any doubt the systematic genocidal intentions of the government of the Ottoman Empire including Sivas, Marsovan, and Angora. The whole reason that the Blue Book was published was to provide full-proof evidence of what happened. I am sure that you are more than capable of looking up an electronic copy. I don't need to. I have a hardcopy. What is really interesting is that the Ottoman Turkish government wasn't bothered about how loyal their Armenian-Turkish subjects were. It didn't make any difference at all. The Armenians in Angora were mostly Roman Catholic Christians and they were very loyal citizens of the Ottoman Empire (as testified many local Turkish officials). The Ottoman Turkish government treated them the same way as they treated the vast majority of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. And the detail in the testimony is comprehensive. Even the details in how they were killed. In one case, the Turks "practised economy" i.e. they didn't waste bullets, on the deported Armenians. Instead they used axes and daggers. The Turks that carried out the deed openly boasted about their achievements (see page 401 of the Uncensored Blue Book). Also, p. 403 of the Blue Book. The tanners and the butchers were called to Asi Yozgad by Turkish officials. The butchers used their small butchers' axes and the tanners used their circular knives on the Armenians as ordered by the Turkish officials. And these Turkish officials were sent from Constantinople (later called Istanbul) because the local Turkish officials refused to do the deed. The local Turkish officials could not do it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Raftaman, 5 April 2010
{{editsemiprotected}} This article really should be flagged for neutrality. It is very obviously pro-Armenian and makes no concession for the highly controversial nature of the event. The Turkish PoV is hardly featured and is presented in such a way as to totally damn and undermine their version of events. This should hopefully be the first of many changes toward the article from someone without a vested interest.
Raftaman (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You will surely be labeled as a nationalistic Turk who is on a crusade to impose Turkish propaganda by some very retarded members. I hope that they prove me wrong.
- The first thing that should be eliminated is the fact that this article accepts a verdict and builds upon that verdict rather than presenting facts. It labels any kind of counter argument as lies or propaganda without actually backing them up. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You listed changes you want made, but I am not sure exactly what needs to be changed, or why. Also, please note our policy on consensus.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Avicennasis @ 03:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will make a edit request according to the rules. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request
{{semiprotected}}
This request is concerning the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa section of the article. There are certain discrepancies that has to be fixed. First is concerning the use of the article by Gunter Lewy. [16] In the article Gunter Lewy never says that the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa was similar to Einsatzgruppen. He also quotes the words of Vehib Pasha from Vahak N. Dadrian's works while questioning their credibility as no original document exists. Another reason for my request for editing of this section is because the section simply relies on the works of Dadrian while many other studies are ignored. One such study is done by Edward J. Erickson. He is a Ph.D and a retired US Army Officer who is the foremost expert on Ottoman military. So, it would be expected to look at what he says explicitly concerning the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa. Here is such an article: [17] I would like to request either the deletion of this section or a rewriting it to show some truth. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's an important contribution to the article, so it probably won't be deleted. If you'd like to change it, please be more specific: write your proposed changes here, explicitly, rather than just saying 'please change it'. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe I have already proposed the changes. First of all, the reference to the article by Gunter Lewy is used wrongly. I believe it's done so to make it look like a scholar who supports the Turkish argument is agreeing on certain points of the genocide claims while If you read the article it only questions the use of the quotes by Vahak N. Dadrian. Leaving that out, the paragraph solely depends on Dadrian's studies while that of Edward J. Erickson is ignored. Erickson have come to conclusion in the article I gave that the Special Organization had nothing to do with any kind of killings of the Armenians and that documents not utilized by Dadrian proves it. So, Teşkilat-i Mahsusa has no place in this article. This section has to be written in a way that those are claims of Dadrian as what they are. A much more expert on the matter, Erickson, highly question Dadrian's conclusion and reaches a much different conclusion. So why should the Dadrian's version of history be the only one that's mentioned here? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- By 'be more specific' I mean write your proposed wording here; so far you've only made vague suggestions. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I requested explicitly the deletion of this section of the article. I've been specific about the case telling what should be edited and what should be deleted. The rule for "edit request" does not require the specific sentences but only says that it would expedite the process. So, please do not delete the request without any reason. But just to please you, I propose this section of the article to be changed with this emptyness " " as the section utilizes references inaccurately and does not consult any expert on the matter. If you have any objections to the request CheesyBiscuit please read the article by Edward J. Erickson and state your objections. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- And I already explained why it should be deleted. I wouldn't have this section in the article as this organization that the section talks about did not took any part in the deportations. It's only according to Vahak N. Dadrian that they did but according to a Ottoman military history expert Edward J. Erickson they did not. I leave the judgment of credibility of which source to be better to you.
- I also explicitly showed which references are inaccurate. Gunter Lewy never compares Teşkilat-i Mahsusa to Einsatzgruppen yet the reference is used for the same sentece. So the Einsatzgruppen part should be deleted from this sentence: "This organization adopted its name in 1913 and functioned like a special forces outfit, or the later Einsatzgruppen.[87]"
- Another mistake is this sentence: "Vehib Pasha, commander of the Ottoman Third Army, called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human species.”[87]" Gunter Lewy's article is referenced but in the article he criticizes Vahak N. Dadrian about this quote and many other pointing out that no original document concerning these quotes and allegation exists today. So this sentence should also be deleted unless the reference is fixed.
- Now I would write a paragraph utilizing the view(the more accurate one) and the facts of Edward J. Erickson as he is much more of an expert on the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa topic but Armenians here do not allow counter arguments or facts to be added to the article. So do you still need me to write the paragraph? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- In a word, yes. You need to express the exact wording you would use to correct the portions you point out as being incorrect. For instance, your comment about "Einsatzgruppen" would be uncontroversial if you were to ask to have it changed to remove the phase "or the later Einsatzgruppen" as it is not supported by the source. The "butcher" quote is unlikely to change as the writer seems to confirm the quote, regardless of what the writer was trying to say about it. If you have concerns about the reliablility of some of the sources, you should take that question to WP:RSN. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will do the wording in time, I promise.
- Well, one my requests was to delete the "or the later Einsatzgruppen" as the reference do not have such a claim.
- I'll repeat. In the article by Gunter Lewy, the quote is not confirmed but questioned. Lewy raises the question that there is no original document. He uses the quote, referencing Vahak N. Dadrian, and then questions how there is no real record. In the article, Gunter Lewy always first quotes what Dadrian claims and then refutes them. Why is the parts of the source being picked deliberately while other parts are ignored? The article also talks how Teşkilat-i Mahsusa did not take part in the deportations but that's ignored too. There is an obvious deliberate act to portray the organization as something that it's not by the person who added the section. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see that you had requested that part to be deleted. That is why we ask for the request to be of the form 'Please change X to Y'. I'll make that change for you. I won't argue about the "butcher" part though. You have to discuss whether the resulting section is synthesis with the other editors here who know about this. Once you have consensus, one of them can implement the changes. Celestra (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what I'm also requesting the sentence concerning the Gunter Lewy article is to be deleted. My reasons are as follows:
- 1) The article of Gunter Lewy quotes this quote from Vahak N. Dadrians studies.
- 2) The sentence has to be backed up by a primary source rather than a tertiary in this case.
- 3) Lewy uses to quote as a part of the section where it represents the argument by Dadrian. At least sentence should have been referenced to Dadrians work itself.
- The reason I'm putting the edits here is because if I deleted It would be reverted and labeled as nationalistic Turkish propaganda. So thank you for at least listening. I will re-write the paragraph soon and put it here so that you can look at it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we prefer secondary sources over primary sources. We are not here to interpret events - just to capture the interpretation of others. I am relatively new to this disagreement; I read the sources, briefly, wthout any bias. Lewy says that Dadrian quotes that material from a deposition. He goes on to say that parts of the deposition were read into an indictment and a verdict. Lewy never challenges the quote, he merely says that an indictment is not proof of guilt and that no sources preserve a trial into which the deposition was read and that the context of the quote is lost. He doesn't say that Dadrian lied or that there were no primary sources for him to have found this quote. I agree it would be better to quote the Dadrian text itself (which would also be a secondary source), but this source seems fine for supporting the claim that Vehib Pasha said that. Others may disagree, but this is too lacking in consensus for someone servicing an edit request to deal with. Please take it to one of the DR forums. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the article by Gunter Lewy is not a secondary source but a tertiary source. I'm sure you'd agree the right thing to be referenced is not the article but the work of Dadrian. Lewy challenges the quote by stating that there is no source for the indictment or the documents it used and that it was allegedly read into accord. "While the entire text of the deposition was allegedly read into the record of the Trabizond trial on March 29, 1919, the proceedings of this trial are not preserved in any source; only the verdict is reprinted in the official gazette." If there was a interpretation, you'd be right that we needed secondary sources but it's a direct quote of a man so a primary source is needed for such a thing. Lewy never supports the claim that Vehib Pasha said that. He simply quotes that Dadrian claims as such. Lewy also suggests that none of the findings of these trials were used later on for the Malta tribunals as they did not constitute as any kind of evidence. I would also like to hear from you about why the whole article of Lewy about this certain issue is ignored while a single sentence is taken out of context to make it look like it says something else?
- DR forums as in? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This entire discussion is a dishonest one. These editors don't give a fig about the truth and are here only to fudge reality by trying to insert doubt that a genocide ever took place by using the words the Republic of Turkey uses: "alleged", "so-called", "claims", "allegations", etc.There is no side here. There is the truth: that the Ottoman government deliberately and systematically destroyed its Armenian population and then there is the denial: the Turkish government and its ill attempts to silence anyone who dares to claim otherwise. Would anyone on Wikipedia permit works written by Neo-Nazis to be seriously used on the Holocaust article to present the "German" side of the argument? Christopher Hitchens, in an article he just penned today on Slate.com, puts it quite well and anyone who is unfamiliar with the topic should read this article here, [18].
There are over a hundred sources listed here, all by reliable authors whose works are published by mainstream publishers and peer-review journals, and their integrity is far greater than the obscure figures the above users are quoting (for the reference on the Einsatzgruppen, I have added an actual source). The denialists are a fringe minority here and their opinion counts next to nothing; we do not have to entertain any of their arguments and fraudulent claims to be seeking "clarity" in the same manner that we would never entertain the arguments of Neo-Nazis. Let's move on to the actual problems.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your attempt to smudge truth as you're an Armenian and I understand your ignorance of keeping a blind eye to studies by people who have more expertise on the matter.
- Let's see how many "reliable" sources we have here. 15 of those sources are from Balakian. 11 of them are from Dadrian. 6 are from Avedian. The numbers actually rise up when you examine the sources. You'd see that many of them actually rely their information on such Armenian "historians." Just because they publish through mainstream publishers doesn't make them more legit.
- It's also understandable why you'd ignore dozens of Western historians who have an expertise in Ottoman history as of course none of them support your arguments.
- I advise you to be more professional in the future rather than making such pathetic comments. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Continue to make such ethnic insults and your editing days on Wikipedia, or lack thereof, I assure you, will be curtailed sharply. If you and the other denialists perist in this kind of disruption, I will be obliged to report this to the administrators who will decide on further measures. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, I came here to service an edit request and find this whole discussion instead. I'd like to add to this article, but it will take me a few days to read through the sources for myself. Can I suggest that people leave off this aspect of the discussion until then before this gets out of hand? (By the way, for future reference, edit requests to protected articles are generally for non-controversial edits, or where there is already consensus from involved editors.) CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just to answer TheDarkLordSeth's question about DR forums, in this case I was refering to the reliable source noticeboard, where you could get additional unbiased opinions at to whether Lewy is a reliable source for that content. The original research noticeboard may also be useful as they handle questions of synthesis. You can read about other forums for resolving disagreements at WP:DR. Celestra (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I need you correct the information Talat Pasha's Black Book. Murat Bardakçı told in his program that Black Book was found by Ayşegül Bafralı who is grand daughter of Hayriye (Talat Pasha's widow) in 2005 by coincidence. While she was removing clothes from a bag remained from Hayriye, she suddenly touched something strange under the bag's cloth. After extracting the fabric in the bag, she encountered with the little black book. The book contained colorful maps and depictions written in Arabic-based Ottoman Turkish alphabet. She called her longtime firend Murat Bardakçı and gave the book. So the book is very new and first publication about Talat Pasha's Black Book was in daily Hurriyet newspaper in 2005 where Muarat Bardakçı was a columnist. The publication created great controversy in media. Turkish Historical Society reacted very harshly and declared that the publiaction was a lie.
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 [19]. 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)
Armenian-Turk
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of all lets make it clear that calling this problem a genocide is totally wrong. Ottoman Empire and Armenians were in war so they attacked each other. First Armenians attached for their independence. They were supported by Russians at that time. Then Ottoman Empire decided to deport Armenian, they were already in WWI they couldn't afford any civil war. It wasn't the best idea though at that time it was necessary. The attacks of Armenians were really violent so during deportation some Turks may have wanted to avenge their families. However, these were indepent actions and there was no government operated genocide. Besides it is known that some of the Armenian children that were deported were already sick. It was bad to deport these people but it was wartime. In fact it is really bad that this thing happened between Turks and Armenians because until that they were as brothers. Ottomans called Armenians loyal nation because they didn't rebel. However, rebels weaken a country in any way and Russians, they were in WWI against Ottoman Empire, wanted to weaken Ottoman Empire so they supported Armenians. These Armenians were lawless guerillas, which can appear from any nation, and they killed many Turks. Then deportation and revenge attacks came and it turned into an ugly war. However, it wasn't called genocide at that time, it was called like that by England. After WWI was over, Turks were still fighting because Turkey was attacked by Italia, France, England, Greece, Armenia... So Turks fought the Independence War which was powerful and a fight for the independence of a nation. England was the main enemy of Turkey and they had to weaken their fight and had to be supported by Western nations. The best way to do that was showing Turks barbaric and the Armenian Genocide was the perfect way. The unfortunate thing for them was the fact that they couldn't prove anything because it didn't exist. They looked for proofs for many years and couldn't find anything. The file they prepared was full of assumptions but there were no evidence. Lets come to Armenian-Turkish Brotherhood. As mentioned before Turks and Armenians were brothers until this ugly problem and even though there are these problems, it still lives. Between 1970-1980 ASALA-Armenian terrorist organization-was murdering many Turkish people. Artin Penik, an Armenian Turkey citizen, burned himself in order to protest ASALA murders, Brotherhood was still alive. Besides in a Turkish book called "Esir Sehrin İnsanlari" by Kemal Tahir there is an important statement which defines every Turks idea about other nations, "We don't have any conflict with other nations, our conflict is with other governments". This "Armenian Genocide" thing is just politics, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf94 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, you are totally unaware of history. I have this thought because you do not even know there was no Armenia as a state or country at the time of WWI. That makes your claim of being attacked by Armenia and being in war with Armenia totally pathetic!
- Secondly, you do not know, that the agressors were Germany, Ottoman Empire and other allies of their in the WWI and it isn't Italy, France etc that attacked.
- Thirdly, in the beginning ASALA murdured the ones that were guilty in organising the Genocide and by the own court of Ottoman Empire were found guilty. But the verdicts weren't carried out due to the revolution. After that :And ASALA assassinated the politicians of the Turkish government, NEVER CIVILIANS ("Turkish people", as you name it) that were pushing the denialist politics, just the same way AS YOU ARE DOING NOW!
the last but the most important: you are calling the murder, forced labor and deportations of civilians from their own lands (in an Empire) based on the national and religious belonging a necessity (in whatever circumstances), which puts you along side with the murderers and fascists that did it. Aregakn (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your claim that ASALA only killed non-civilian people who participated in the atrocities against Armenians is laughable. ASALA was active in the 70s and 80s killing Turkish diplomats and their families. There were no one alive by then who was in WWI Ottoma Empire. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You might not have read what I wrote fully. What you aid was also told by me. And you also lack knowledge about ASALA and it's actions. Read a bit more to know who and when they killed and you shall see where and how the organisers and participants were killed. Also, if not other sources, mind, that your own court regarded them as criminals and organisers of mass-murders of the civilian Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. It will help you understand the organisational magnitude of it and help you see the reasoning of the term GENO-CIDE. Regards to one more denialist! Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
WoW statements such as these are how this article got created it seems, what blunt lies! "ASALA assassinated the politicians of the Turkish government, NEVER CIVILIANS ("Turkish people", as you name it) that were pushing the denialist politics, just the same way AS YOU ARE DOING NOW! not only did ASALA kill innocent people and children it seems you are also making a threat? No wonder this article is full of flaws if ASALA supporters are writing it.Hittit (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I? Threaten? Threaten you? ridiculous are not only your assumptions about how wiki articles are created but also your emotional perception of facts. That will not change the past history, BTW.
- But be sure it can change the future history of peoples. What denialists are doing are risking loosing totally what they are fighting for. For the sake of your own values (if those are not anarchism), let you be able for some time cut any connections you have to any sides and whatever goals, agendas or whatever, and just for that period think of what denialism or genocide leads to. Look at the values and goals of the 3rd Reich. Did what they did bring to a rise of the value of "the race, nation" that they wanted or it destroyed almost totally the understanding of "nation" in those nations? Tell yourselves what their committed genocide brought to their own nation. Tell yourselves the results of those actions. Even if after that short time everything will come to the same point in the terms of your actions, just note that it IS possible that those values you strive for might parish because of the chosen path to do it. This is all I can tell hoping for wisdom of the creation called Man. Let the last long part of my message stay rhetoric (either ignored or considered but rhetoric), pls.
Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, Aregakn, if I used Armenia as a state during WWI I am sorry for that, that would be a mistake. I always higlighted the fact that Armenian rebels and lawless guerillas attacked first and deportation was done in response to it. And I do know history and that history tells me that we were attacked by Italy and France too. And after WWI there was an Armenian state and they have attacked us. I pointed out this too. I advice you to study history. Besides in my response I tried to be peaceful, friendly and good. I said we should be brothers. Whereas you are being unreasonably agrressive and you are trying to justify ASALA. Besides I totally didn't understand what is your problem with "Turkish people". I understand that you don't like denialism but denialism of the genocide is right because there was nothing more than the deportation of Armenians. As I said before I accept the fact that it was bad but it was necessary. And DO NOT compare Turks with the 3rd Reich!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I shall compare any criminal state with an other criminal state committing similar crimes and you are not to prevent it.
- The history you say you "know" is most likely incomplete. You are the first person I have met, that doesn't only know, that in the WWI AND WWII the aggressor was Germany and its allies. WWI started by Germany and allies (including Ottoman Empire) with an attack to a country under protection of ANTANTA. It is you that has to be advised to learn history as your knowledge is obviously incompleate, to put it mildly.
- I am not into discussing the issue if self-defense groups with their ancestors' refiles attacked a fully equipped Ottoman army forces, first of all, because this isn't the discussion division, secondly, because it's acknowledged by not 1-100 people but states and international organisations. Leaving this aside, killing, forcing into camps or works, harming (etc) CIVILIANS on their national, ethnic, religious (etc) bases is what constitutes a genocide.
- An other advice for you is to read what constitutes or mean the terms, then argue.
- The last but not the least, I confirm what I said: Telling that the above mentioned was a necessity puts you in one line with those who planned, committed and supported such actions. This is the crime which was even condemned by the same Ottoman Court, so again, go learn history. I really advise you not to stick to commitments when you study as people with more knowledge are not easy to manipulate with.
- Aregakn (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Aregakn (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Facts
WWI started at 1914
Armenians rebel at 1915
Ottoman Empire deported Armenians
Armenian Genocide was claimed
Ottoman Military Court tried Armenian Genocide
British Court tried Armenian Genocide
Both courts couldn't find any evidence
The Repuclic of Turkey was founded
Turkey offered to make an Armenian-Turk comisson which will look at archives for the claim of Armenian Genocide
The Repuclic of Armenia didn't accept it
US Congress recognized the Armenian Genocide in a suspicious way without showing any evidence
Archive facts:
There wasn't any systematical murder of Armenians
1.3 million of the "death" 1.5 million Armenians were alive and the rest died because of famine and diseases and some of them were killed whent they fighting at war
So?..
--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a shame that your knowledge of facts does not match with the reallity of their existance. In addition you lack references always!
- You may discuss, argue, try to convince yourselves in anything that the Turkish official podition says but here are some relevant facts for you:
- 1) The issue of the connection to the war; citation from IAGS (I'd recommend you read who they are):
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population.
- 2) This was also an answer to your claim of "rebellion".
- 3) For your use of the word claim; citation from IAGS:
We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are
concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with
governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades.
- 4) For your falcification of what courts found; citation from IAGS:
The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.
- These citations are from the Open Letter of the most reputable assotiation for genocide scholars ("The International Association of Genocide Scholars") to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as an answer to his letter to the same association. Here is the main body of the letter:
Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:
We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.
[....] We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.
We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.
[....]
- The details anybody may find at http://www.genocidescholars.org under the link [20].
- 5) To answer your lack of knowledge that it was Armenia offering dialogues and Turkey refusing I'll bring one example in relevance to the very issue you claim (though I can bring more, if you are interested). Armenia did not reject the offer but proposed a more broad committee, dearest Lonewolf94. Underlining the importance for cooperation of 2 neighboring states and solving the existing problems as did Erdogan in his letter to the Armenian President, Robert Kocharyan answers to the offer; citation from the answering letter to Erdogan for creating of a joint group of historians:
Your suggestion to address the past cannot be effective if it deflects from addressing the present and the future. In order to engage in a useful dialog, we need to create the appropriate and conductive political environment. It is the responsibility of governments to develop bilateral relations and we do not have the right to delegate that responsibility to historians. That is why we have proposed and propose again that, without pre-conditions, we establish normal relations between our two countries. In that context, an intergovernmental commission can meet to discuss any and all outstanding issues between our two nations, with the aim of resolving them and coming to an understanding.
- You can find both of the documents here [21]. If you do not believe ("your eyes"), you may need to see a Turkish website for it to check, if you wish. maybe http://www.tesev.org.tr has the answer letter but I couldn't search for it.
- 6) Do you at least know how the US congress works and what was this issue? DO you know that this was one of the 3 similar cases of the US Congressional Committee? And what is "suspicious" for you? That nobody said a word agains the fact that it was a genocide (you can watch the records)? Or that those, who wanted to vote for the bill were called to the White House for a very long time so they couldn't vote for the bill? Or anything else? If you doubt any of these, just watch the record of the discussion.
- FYI about how interested the Turkish government is in discussing this issue openly you can read this from the American Historical Association:
- Dear Prime Minister Erdogan,
- At its meeting last week, the Council of the American
Historical Association asked me to express to you its grave concern about the cancellation of the conference on “Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy,” which was to be held at Bosphorus University on 25-27 May 2005.
- As I am sure you are aware, this conference was to
bring together Turkish scholars from several disciplines in order to discuss the fate of the Armenian minority in the last years of the Ottoman Empire. The conference was called off following a number of attacks by leading politicians, including Cemil Cicek, the Minister of Justice. So intense and inflammatory were these criticisms that the conference organizers were justifiably concerned about the security of the participants.
- The American Historical Association is the leading
organization of historians in the United States, with over 13,000 members, including a number of prominent scholars interested in Turkish and Ottoman history. Needless to say, the Association does not have a position on the fate of the Armenians, but it is deeply committed to free and open inquiry about historical issues, and especially about those issues that have been charged with political and ideological animosities. The May Conference was to have been a forum in which a variety of voices could have been heard. It is a grave misfortune, both for Turkey and for the world of historical scholarship, that political
pressures silenced these voices.
Edit Request for the Introduction and Casulty Figures Section
{{editsemiprotected}}
The first part of the request is about the addition of the word "claim" to the initial paragraph:
The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1] It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.[2][3][4][5][6] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[7][8][9]
Added version:
The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the claim of deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1] It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.[2][3][4][5][6] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[7][8][9]
As can be seen from this link [23] too that there is no consensus on the issue. It has been proposed in the reliable source noticeboard that BBC is a completely reliable source concerning the nature of a issue. I propose the use of either "claim of" or "dispute of" in the introduction to make the article little bit more neutral.
The second request is concerning the claim that Western scholars put the number at 1.5 million:
While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western scholars that over 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 600,000 (per the modern Turkish state) to 1,500,000 (per Western scholars)[92] Argentina,[93] and other states). Encyclopædia Britannica references the research of Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office, who estimated that 600,000 Armenians "died or were massacred during deportation" in the years 1915–1916.[94][95]
The reference used for 1.5 million figure which is numbered 92 in no way supports this. [24] What the source say is:
Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey.
The 1.5 million figure is the accepted population number of Armenians before the WWI. They can be seen here: [25] There are only one or two Western sources that put a number above 1.5 million where one of them includes Armenians that are not in Ottoman Empire also(National Geographic). Though the National Geographic case is rather interesting as it gives a 2 million figure after the alleged incidents happened. The rest is claimed by Armenian sources only. So my proposed edition is simply to revert MarshallBagramyan's edit:
While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western scholars that over 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 600,000 (per the modern Turkish state) to 1,500,000 (per Armenian scholars[92], Argentina and other states[93]). Encyclopædia Britannica references the research of Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office, who estimated that 600,000 Armenians "died or were massacred during deportation" in the years 1915–1916.[94][95]
Edited sections are in bold. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone also tell me how to do that horizontal line after title of a section? Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: The editsemiprotected template is intended to allow non-autoconfirmed editors a way to edit a semiprotected article using any autoconfirmed editor as a proxy. You are autoconfirmed. Please stop misusing this template. In answer to your question, that line is part of a level two section heading. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I must have misread it then. Thanks for explaining.
- Is there a way to make those edits I mentioned in detail and not have them reverted without any feedback other than calling them "propaganda." I'm sure someone will revert it without discussing or presenting any real evidence. I don't really want to spend time on this just to see that it gets reverted 10 seconds after the edit. What would you recommend? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- All edits are subject to consensus, so any edit which goes against that consensus is unlikely to survive very long. Ideally, you should engage the other editors here and try to convince them that your change is reasonable or to find a compromise which is acceptable to everyone. Failing that, you can follow the different dispute resolution paths to get other editors' opinions. If all of the cooperative dispute resolution paths fail, you can take the issue to the arbitration comittee to decide one way or the other. Remember, the burden is on you to prove that the change improves the article, not the other way around. That is where the bold-revert-discuss cycle comes from; you are welcome to be bold, someone may (and did already, in this case) revert you, then a discussion starts here to prove that the change improves the article. Good luck, Celestra (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see. So as I understand the arbitration comittee is the last resort. Do you think the dispute resolution path already failed? Or do you think it would be better to simply wait one or two days for people to input their views on the matter? As I have described the changes I want to do in detail but of course I can't take an argument like "This is propaganda. Denialist claims will not be allowed" as an input. I'm asking you these because I want to understand the admin point of view. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin; I'm just another editor like yourself. I don't think you have exhausted the normal paths. If I were in your shoes, I would pick one issue and reduce the question to its simplist form and try to reach an agreement here. Your position that this should be called a claim, for instance. Find all the reliable sources which call it a claim and all the reliable sources that call it a fact and weigh them against each other. If no consensus is reached on that one issue, take that one issue to some dispute resolution noticeboard. And so on. Celestra (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I'm doing above. I listed explicitly why it's more appropriate to use the word dispute or claim. There isn't really a committee to decide on historical matters but if there is no consensus between historians which I also explicitly shown before then it must be regarded as a dispute and the verdict should be left to the reader. So I actually did that only to be told that denialist claims won't be allowed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I thought you were a random IP for a second. Well, I will try to be more patient. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Only things I found is that there is no real substance against this issue being disputed. Would you so kindly point me the direction with a link? If that discussion addresses my points than I will accept it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is allowed to change. Read the previous discussions and if they leave out something you think is important, start a new discussion. Regarding the change to add 'claim' to the lede, though, you would probably need to show that a large percentage of reliable sources questioned whether the thing occurred. See WP:UNDUE for guidance. You can search the archives using the tool at the top of the page. Searching with 'claim' and 'lead' produced a lot of hits for me. Celestra (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I did that but the word "claim" is rather broad and used for a lot of things. Though I highly doubt that there is any argument against the fact that BBC calls it disputed and that a handful number of historians who actually specialize on this issue are disputing against the claims. Though, on second thought I think adding "dispute of" suits much better. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You need to use both 'claim' and 'lead' at the same time. Depending on the percentage of reliable sources which express doubt, you might consider a sentence somewhere in the article about the doubt, or a section in the body and a sentence in the lede. "Foo bar is this event. Bogoish historians dispute whether this event occured." is much more neutral than "Foo bar is the claim that this event occurred." The word claim brings along a strong sense of falseness. Read WP:NPOV#Words to avoid. Celestra (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's why I changed it to the word "dispute." I understand how it sounds when the word "claim" is used though in a article that takes on one side I don't really know why it's use is denied. The introduction of the article leaves no space to the fact that the genocide claim is a disputed issue. There are a lot more historians out there, non-Turkish ones, than people think that there are. The important bit is that they're actually experts on the matter with a degree on either demographics, Turkish history, Ottoman history or Middle Eastern history.(The genocide scholars are made up of lawyers, some economists and some historians) If you actually eliminate the recognition by political organizations like EU or governments there are actually a handful of historians who support the genocide claims and who argues against these claims. The latter being little fewer is mostly because people do not read publications that argue against the claim and in the 70s and 80s there have been a global threat by ASALA to silence people. You might agree with me that governments or non history organizations recognizing it as genocide is simply a political factor and that it has no weight on the whole issue as a proof of truth. The introduction simply establishes that Turkey is wrong. If I can't use the word "claim" why can the word "deny" be used? The fact that this is a highly disputed issue has to be established in the introduction.
- Also, do you have any opinions on the second part of the edit request? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dark, read my latter comments to the user having opened this discussion and you shall see how many and of what kind of scholars discuss what. If I write a PHD (being of non-armenian decent) that doesn't mean it's a prove. The answer to the letter of the PM Erdogan by IAGS clearly states that what you have been convinced in is fake. Pls read it [26]. If it shows you forbidden (it sometimes happens with sensored internet) I can send it to you or you can try t cheat the system otherwise. Aregakn (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Neither such websites are are censored in Turket nor I'm in Turkey. The link simply doesn't work. Here is a working one: [27] The IAGS is a joke. It's been 16 years since it's creation and it have only issued 5 statements. 3 of them are for so-called Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocide and the rest two are Darfur and Zimbabwe. It's such a joke that a group claiming that they represent the major body of scholars and the foremost authority on genocide have only found the time to issue statements concerning those 5 of which 3 of them being about Turks. Apparently there have been only 5 genocides so far. Just take a look at it's key members; a law professor, a theologian, an anthropologist, an biography editor, a sociologist, a historian and an other law professor. There is only Helen Fein who is an historian. You expect me to take them as an authority in genocide issues? Their letter to Erdogan ignores even the most simple facts of the events. How can I take them seriously when they can't even get simple facts right? The letter in no way shows what I've convinced to be as fake. It's not being convinced but the facts that led me to believe otherwise. If I am to reach a verdict on an issue of history, I look at people who are experts in that certain era and the experts believe otherwise. There multiple letters to Western governments with more than 60 signatures of professors on Turkish studies involving Ottoman history. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request for adding the "claim" word is important for this article. Also there is something more, this article tells Denial of Armenian Genocide as something bad. Whereas it is simply a defense. There are evidences that may prove Armenian Genocide but there are also evidences that prove that it doesn't exist. And IAGS and this article doesn't care these evidences. IAGS is really pathetic, they passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide without fully considering the evidences and they lack historians-they are very important for telling the truth about sth happened in past. Besides it is certain that they only work for West. They didn't mention genocides that are done by Western nations. I also checked that letter. That letter has already reached a verdict that Armenian Genocide happened. It doesn't give Turkey a chance to defend itself and prove that it doesn't exist with history and archives. That's why Turkey didn't cooperate. This article also lacks information about Armenian-Turk relationships in Ottoman Empire and other aspects of this subject.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it was requested I will show a reference which tells mainly everything I have written so far about the claim of Armenian Genocide. Look at it carefully, [28]
--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- @TheDarkLordSeth: If you want to improve the article, I strongly recommend focusing on a single point which you feel is not handled well currently and try to form a consensus to improve that one point. The point you started with is the handling of any doubt about these events. Enumerate the reliable sources to see how many express uncertainty. Based on that, propose the best way to express that in the article. The current consensus appears to be that the uncertainty is very small and that that viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint; hence the use of the term denial. If you want to change that consensus, present evidence that the viewpoint is more widespread. Celestra (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have already did that. I gave a list of historians who specialize on the matter and argue against the claims. I guess I need to do that again but I do not understand you telling me to look at previous discussions on the subject while ignoring my previous posts. But here it goes:
Some historians:
- 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.
- An article from 1923 pointing out how if all the casualty reports are added up the number goes to 35 million:
- [29]
- An article where even though the writer believes in the genocide claims it refers to it as disputed and alleged:
- [30]
- Articles from a lawyer who specializes in international law.
- [31], [32], :[33]
- Sworn statement of an Armenian whose mother lived through WWI:
- [34]
- The BBC page for the issue:
- [35]
- Another article:
- [36]
- Declaration made by American Academicians(Yes there are some Turkish-Americans in the signature list, ignore them):
- [37]
- Another article:
- [38]
- Another article:
- [39]
- Of course the list goes on for historians, articles and also books. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It's apparent with the usual new accounts always popping in the same time each year that April 24 is near. The same list of alleged scholars claiming the event as being one big myth. :) However, there appear to be one difference this year, Erik Zurcher mysteriously disappeared from the list, God knows why. It appears that after multiple attempts by some to educate that Erik Zurcher was not a denier of the Armenian genocide, the revisionists finally removed him from the list. But this year, we have a new figure, Arend Jan Boekestijnwho suddenly becoming expert on the question, but at the same time compleatly ignoring most of the major references on the subject, present in his bibliography but his article is writen in a way as if he had no knowledge of their content. For instance, he dedicates an entire paragraph about the 'government' in the 'government' to tell us why it can be considered as a genocide, and on just the next chapter he give the reasons why this government in a government took this decision of elimination the Armenians, justifying it. The rest has been addressed on various media, scholars are placed in such a black and white list, when during the last five years a new consensus was formed, when scholars like Zurcher and even Dadrian have agreed as well as several Western scholars of Turkish descent. But what takes the prize here is probably the claim of lawyer who specializes in international law, which is about Bruice Fein, who is the lawyer of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and is representing Gunter Lewy in the multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center. Bruce Fein is also Schmidt ( (R-OH)'s attorney, who is implicated in the Turkish spy scandal sparked from Sibel Edmonds testimonies. I could go on, countering every piece of distortionand falshood, but it's simply a waste of time, as all of this has little to do with the content of the article itself, which already contains the name of the proponents of the minority position, and what this position is all about. Note that even Justin McCarthy admitted that the event being a genocide is the majority position. I don't believe having anything else to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you would pick the smallest points to cast doubt on those individuals(if they're real). That would be like me arguing against Vahakn Dadrian because he was dismissed from his university due to multiple sexual harassment cases. Such low level arguments will not be used by me.
- I explicitly stated that this list is incomplete. Erik Zürcher shares the opinion that the Aram Andonian documents are fake though I wouldn't add him to the list due to his position on the overall of the issue.
- It's natural that there is a majority and a minority for the issue. It happens for every dispute. It's also natural that there are more scholars who support the Armenian claims as the Armenians put a lot more amount of money, people were threatened by ASALA and the fact that your books don't get sold if you argue against the genocide claims.
- If you actually look at the historians that are experts on Ottoman history, I'm not even sure if you would find more of them accepting it as a "genocide." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I request a change to the following section:
"It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14] The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events.[16]"
I propose the following:
"The so called Armenian genocide is widely proposed to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as some scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14]. These claims are in turn also opposed and contradicted by many historians and experts making the subject highly disputable and the target for continuous debate."
As a refernce we can start with the list provided by Mr. heDarkLordSeth and continued with the list of scholars below.
I propose the removal of the sentence: "The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events.[16]" It is clearly POV and related to a different era. I doubt the Armenians were in mind when they came up with the word.
- Bernard Lewis - Princeton University
- Norman Itzkowitz - Princeton University
- Richard Robinson - Harvard University
- David Fromkin - Boston University
- Avigdor Levy - Brandeis University
- Pierre Oberling - Hunter College
- Roderic Davison - George Washington University
- Michael Radu – PhD, Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Stefano Trinchese - University of Chieti
- Augusto Sinagra - University of Romae-Sapienza
- Norman Stone - Bilkent University
- Samuel A. Weems Hittit (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Your third paragraph is not even worth replying to (fancy conspirationist theories, in the face of evidences that there is documented cases of bribing of scholars by Turkey, like in Lowry's cases), as for your last, Ottoman Departments are not apolitical, everyone knows that since Heath W. Lowry scandal. Simply put, it's like expecting any Armenologist to deny the Armenian genocide, when their work is based on Armenian texts. Take Edward J. Erickson for instance and read his aknowledgements page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- What a joke. I strongly oppose any of these proposals, which would result in some cases in a removal of reliable sources. I will only quote (but there are a lot of similar quotes):
“ | There can be no doubt about the fact of [Armenian] genocide itself. In this sense, the denial of the Armenian genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews. | ” |
— Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 53. ISBN 0765808811. |
- Can you provide a link to a quote by Lemkin stating explicitly that he coined the term to the Armenian genocide claim?
- Also, can you provide a link or a list of historians who specialize in Ottoman history that support the genocide claims? I assume in reality you wouldn't ask a urologist if you have an ear infection. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure.
- Justin McCarthy' is both a demographer and a historian specializing in Turkish studies. He focuses on late Ottoman history and it's population. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.
- Andrew Mango is also an historian who focuses on early years of the republic of Turkey and it's evolution from Ottoman state. He is know for his more realistic approach.
- Heath W. Lowry is the director of Turkish studies in Princeton University. He doesn't really have a focus other than the Ottoman Empire as he's involved in studies starting from the creation of the empire to it's destruction with some focus on Christian population. Has publication explicitly on the issue.
- Edward J. Erickson is the foremost authority in Ottoman military. I don't think we can find anyone who focuses on Ottoman military more than him. He has many works concerning the Ottoman military of WWI. Has multiple publications on the military of Ottoman Empire concerning the WWI era.
- Gwynne Dyer has a Ph.D in Middle Eastern history and a MA in military history. He doesn't necessarily focuses on a singular era but he has extensive work on Middle Eastern history of mostly late eras. Has multiple publications on the issue.
- Arend Jan Boekestijn is an historian who specializes in international relations. It's one of the weaker ones in the list.
- Jeremy Salt is an historian who focuses on the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Has publication on the issue.
- Michael M. Gunter specializes on Kurds(who were an important part of the issue) and other Middle Eastern issues. Has multiple publications on the issue.
- Eberhard Jäckel is an historian who specializes in the Holocaust. Wrote a review and approved Guenter Lewy's book. I guess another weak one but crucial for the comparison of "Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust.
- Guenter Lewy specializes in the Holocaust, "Armenian Genocide" and other such issues. Has multiple publications on this issue.
- Stanford Shaw was one of the most involved non-Turkish Ottoman historian. He has multiple publications on this issue.
- Norman Stone used to be an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and involved in WWI studies. He has multiple publications concerning this era.
- Hew Strachan almost completely focuses on WWI and late European history(with a British focus). He has multiple publications on this.
- Brian G. Williams specializes in Middle Eastern and Islamic history. He also studies various genocide cases.
- Gilles Veinstein specializes in Ottoman and Turkish history. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.
- Robert F. Zeidner specializes in Ottoman military history. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.
- As you can see almost all of them explicitly specializes on the issue. Now I'm waiting answers to two of my questions from my previous post. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Most of these "scholars" are obscure individuals who are deeply entwined with the Turkish state and its auxiliary sham "educational" institutions. None of them are beyond criticism and notorious deniers like McCarthy, A. Mango, S. Shaw, Salt, Lewy, and Lowry all have been roundly criticized for embarrassing demonstrations of shoddy scholarship by scholars, ranging from distortion of sources to selectivity to outright fabrications of quotations, whose backgrounds are precisely related to the study of the Ottoman Empire or Genocide/Holocaust Studies: Vahakn Dadrian, Speros Vryonis Jr., Richard G. Hovannisian, Robert Jay Lifton, Donald Bloxham, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, Israel Charney, Taner Akcam, Fatma Müge Göçek, etc. Donald Quataert, himself an Ottoman historian who acknowledges that a genocide took place and the former head of the Institute of Turkish Studies, was forced to resign from his position after the Turkish government realized that he was no longer going to toe the line that it has drawn for him.
- You have to realize that all your endeavors to insert doubt regarding the genocide are nonnegotiable. We may disagree on semantics or numbers or some other secondary material but what are you doing is akin to inserting a line in the Holocaust article that "many respected scholars still doubt as to whether Hitler's objective was to exterminate the Jews" and that's unacceptable. But the past few weeks of this pointless discussion has failed to demonstrate that to you and requires acceptance by your part that what took place in World War I was a systematic attempt to annihilate a people. Your ICANTHEARYOU attitude is what's at fault here, not some inherent bias in the sources or content matter. If you're unable to bring yourself to accept that such a thing took place, then you really don't have much to achieve a "consensus" on. Scholars are unanimous: a genocide took place, accept it and move on. Can it not be any clearer?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you read Arend Jan Boekestijn text? He's using the new concensus regarding the CUP which even most Western scholars of Turkish descent support. (Which is basically Zurcher argument) He is not denying it, he is justifying it. That list is mostly based on old books which were replaced. Even Gunter Lewy thesis mostly revolve around the body of works dating back over 15 years ago, with an update only on Dadrian work regarding German sources. That's not surprising, since he wrote the body of his work, around 15 years ago.
- They're hardly obscure. All of them reach to the conclusion that there is no real proof to call what happened a genocide. It's simple as that. Only 2 or 3 of them have any real ties with the Turkish government; a tie that exists for many other historians who support the genocide claims with the Armenian government and Armenian diaspora. There is not a single credible historian who denies the Holocaust. The vast amount of documents, orders, pictures, and many others from Nazis own government alone is enough to prove it. There is simply no comparison. I have many Jewish friends who take such a comparison as an insult. The argument you put forward for McCarthy. Mango, Shaw, Salt, Lewy and Lowry is so wrong that I can only say that it's completely the other way around.
- For the list of historians you gave there is not a single Ottoman historian in that list. You have two Armenians and one Greek historian. I was under the impression that I also couldn't use Turkish historians. One of them is a psychiatrist and an other psychologist. Also Taner Akcam is a known communist with a known grudge and agenda against Turkish government. That leaves only 3 names. If those are your Ottoman historians who know about the era It sort of paints a very sad situation for genocide claimers. Though the controversy about the Donal Quataert is indeed a shame that has to be shed some light on.
- They are not negotiable as they are facts. The amount of so-called evidence for "Armenian Genocide" is tiny to the level of atoms when compared to that of Holocaust. The behavior of yours to resort to make up arguments that are simply incorrect is understandable as you have no substance to provide. The very fact that the majority of the historians you mentioned have no expertise on Ottoman history or sometimes even a degree on history proves my argument. Scholars are not unanimous: there is no proof that a genocide took place, accept it and move on. Can it not be any clearer?
- I hope that Sardur can counter my points more efficiently. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- What argument? Mango is a Turkish scholar, born in Turkey and a mouthpiece of the Turkish government. Shaw and his Turkish wife (the co-author of his famous revisionist work) were a mouthpiece of the Turkish government, his most known book was exposed as being a copy of a Turkish scholar, he was acting as a proxy. I don't think you really want to bring back the controversy serounding Lowry. Lewy denial is ideological in nature, as he believes only the Jews were victim of genocide. He claimed that was not true, answering the article on him here on Wikipedia, referring to Rwanda and claiming he thinks genocide, when he termed in an ethnic cleansing in his article, falling short of using the term genocide. McCarthy was brought before the Turkish Grand assembly to tell them how to deal with the Armenian question. I can go on and on..., you're reply regarding Akçam is funny..., most intellectuals in Turkey who took part of the student revolution were leftlists and harsh criticizers of the system. That's irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, while most of the scholars you cite those elements I bring have directly to do with the subject. There is not a single credible historian who denies the Holocaust. The vast amount of documents, orders, pictures, and many others from Nazis own government alone is enough to prove it. There is simply no comparison. That's BS, what order of extermination, neither the Armenian genocide, nor the genocide during WWII, or any major genocide for that matter are documentable because of any orders. As for you claim of 'credible', that's the whole point, since a historian will lose his credibility denying it. This does not mean anything, because the denial of the holocaust is not a multimillion dollar business financed by a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Marshal refering to your statement: “Most of these "scholars" are obscure individuals who are deeply entwined with the Turkish state”. Currently the article relies also on 3rd party Christian Missionary sources, amateur off-hour historians, falsified documents, and people called Friends of the Armenian People + hearsay. You should have no issues accepting changes referenced by a list of distinguished scholars from institutions like Princeton, Harvard and UCLA. I have intentionally given you only foreign sources, but since this article has also used Armenian sources then we should also be able to use Turkish research. If we cannot do this then this article will remain POV and we cannot have a POV article.Hittit (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's again a shame, DarkLord... You fail to see that this was an answering letter to the Turkish PM's request and if it wasn't imprtant he wouldn't have applied.
- Secondly you failed to notice, that who you mentioned are not the only members but only the Administrative and this is why the variety of professions are present in it. The organisation is an association, one of the most respected in such issues, with a global spread.
- Unfortunately I am almost sure you understood it but because you want to represent things to the readers in your manner, you try to misslead them.
- An other fact is, that you failed noting, that the conference on this ver issue planned to take place in Turkey was canceled (if one wouldn't understand prohibited) by the Turkish authorities. This clearly shows everything. Claim is that there was no genocide and this is where it has to be mentioned. All other tries to cover it, justify or soften it are crimes against humanity as the genocide is the biggest crime against humanity.
- If the Turkish government was sure in what it claims and what you advocate, it'd have already applied for the international court of justice as any party involved in it can apply with a goal to confirm, deny or anything else, according to the COnvention (i remember u don't agree it constituted a genocide). Now I hope you shall use your knowledge to convince them to do it to once and for ever get rid of that problem... Or you don't think that getting rid of it is correct? Tschues! Aregakn (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can also see, that Hittit is totally unaware of how the term was invented and hasn't read at least my conversation with Dark in other paragraphs, though he has in this. Hittit, here is the link for you to see how the person who invented the term spoke of it refering to the Armenians and then to the 3rd Reich etc [40].
- I'd like all of those, who have some doubts in their mind, that the term might not be used or it can be presented as a claim to remember, that it just cannot happen, as the Armenian Genocide is called such by the first who named such actions Genocide and it is clearly stated by him, that the reason of inventing it is what happened to the Armenians, the Jews etc. You want it or not, it is directly invented to describe those very actions. Aregakn (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Some more organisations that the Turkish state-agenda advocates should confront before trying to spread it in encyclopedias including Wiki:
The International Campaign to End Genocide
1.5 million Armenians. 3 million Ukrainians. 6 million Jews. 250,000 Gypsies. 6 million Slavs. 25 million Russians. 25 million Chinese. 1 million Ibos. 1.5 million Bengalis. 200,000 Guatemalans. 1.7 million Cambodians. 500,000 Indonesians. 200,000 East Timorese. 250,000 Burundians. 500,000 Ugandans. 2 million Sudanese. 800,000 Rwandans. 2 million North Koreans. 10,000 Kosovars. Genocides and other mass murders killed more people in the twentieth century than all the wars combined.
“Never again” has turned into “Again and again.” Again and again, the response to genocide has been too little and too late.
During the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, the world’s response was denial.
[....]
With the following prominent organisations as signatories (no doubts that they did it based on scholars, is there?):
The following organizations are members of the International Campaign to End Genocide, chaired by Genocide Watch. The Campaign was founded in 1999, and was the first international genocide prevention coalition.
The Aegis Trust - Genocide Prevention Initiative: Nottinghamshire, United KingdomThe Anuak Justice Council: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; Spokane, Washington, USA
The Alliance to Abolish Genocide: New York, NY; Washington, DC; Capetown, South Africa
CALDH - centro de acción legal para los derechos humanos: Guatemala City, Guatemala
The Cambodian Genocide Group: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The Cambodian Genocide Project, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Center for Holocaust and Human Rights Studies at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University: New York, New York, USA
CHAK -- The Centre of Halabja against Anfalazation and Genocide of Kurds: London, United Kingdom; Stockholm, Sweden; Washington, DC, USA; Copenhagen, Denmark; Berlin, Germany; Ottawa, Canada; Oslo, Norway, The Hague, Netherlands; Helsinki, Finland
Genocide Alert, Germany
The Genocide Intervention Network: Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania; Washington, DC, USA
Genocide Studies Program - Yale University: New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Genocide Watch: Washington, D.C., USA; Capetown, South Africa)
INDICT: Baghdad, Iraq
INFORCE: Bournemouth, UK
The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide: Jerusalem, Israel
International Alert: London, United Kingdom
The International Crisis Group: Brussels, Belgium; New York, Washington, DC, USA; London, United Kingdom; Moscow, Russia
Minority Rights Group International: London, United Kingdom
The Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies: Montreal, Québec, Canada
Never Again: London, United Kingdom; Kigali, Rwanda; Canada; U.S.A.
The Plowshares Institute: Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A., Capetown, South Africa
Prévention Génocides: Brussels, Belgium
The Remembering Rwanda Trust: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Survival International: London, UK; Milan, Italy; Madrid, Spain; Paris, France
TRIAL: Geneva, Switzerland
Ref: [41]. Anything more needed for the denialists to understand what "overwhelming" and "scholarly" is? I hope this would be accepted as a rhetoric question... Aregakn (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Ref: [42] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ich glaube, das ist schon alles!
- I think it's time to close this discussion and this silly many-times-repeating doscussion issue. And let us hope this will be the last time one starts it. Aregakn (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Editing before discussing
What happened to the rule of not editing before additions are discussed in the talk-page, the pro-genocide team has now inserted several un-discussed and clearly bias statements. Are these going to be withdrawn or we can start reverting? Hittit (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- What a joke. You are doing exactly the same. Sardur (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also note, when bringing the article, let's call it, "start" position to the point before the disruptive changes were made (by, for instance, you) isn't changing but reverting changes.
- If you are not going to discuss a value-adding change to the article, do not spam the talk-page by opening new paragraphs that lead to nowhere. Aregakn (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
added material
The following trial material will probably soon be deleted from the article on Trabzon. There may be places in this or other articles where this content should be added as an appropriate location for it.
Trabzon was a major Armenian extermination center during the Armenian Genocide, as well as a location of subsequent trials. Eitan Belkind was a Nili member, who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official. He was assigned to the headquarters of Camal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians, [1] Lt. Hasan Maruf, of the Ottoman army, describes how a population of a village were taken all together, and then burned. [2] Also, the Commander of the Third Army, Vehib's 12 pages affidavit, which was dated December 5, 1918, presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment (published in Takvimi Vekayi, No. 3540, May 5, 1919), report such a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Mus. S. S. McClure write in his work, Obstacles to Peace, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1917. pp. 400–1, that in Bitlis, Mus and Sassoun, "The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in tile various camps was to burn them." And also that, "Turkish prisoners who had apparently witnessed some of these scenes were horrified and maddened at the remembering the sight. They told the Russians that the stench of the burning human flesh permeated the air for many days after." The Germans, Ottoman allies, also witnessed the way Armenians were burned according to the Israeli historian, Bat Ye’or, who writes: "The Germans, allies of the Turks in the First World War, …saw how civil populations were shut up in churches and burned, or gathered en masse in camps, tortured to death, and reduced to ashes,…" [3]
During the Trabzon trial series, of the Martial court (from the sittings between March 26 and May 17, 1919), the Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib, caused the death of children with the injection of morphine, the information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed. [4]. Dr. Ziya Fuad, and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits, reporting a cases, in which, two school buildings were used to organize children and then sent them on the mezzanine, to kill them with a toxic gas equipment. This case was presented during the Session 3, p.m., 1 April 1919, also published in the Constantinople newspaper Renaissance, 27 April 1919 [5]. The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote in Türkce Istanbul, No. 45, 23 December 1918, also published in Renaissance, 26 December 1918, that "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the IIIrd Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzican were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood ‘inactive’." Jeremy Hugh Baron writes : "Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes. Nazim's brother-in-law Dr. Tevfik Rushdu, Inspector-General of Health Services, organized the disposal of Armenian corpses with thousands of kilos of lime over six months; he became foreign secretary from 1925 to 1938." [6]. The psychiatrist, Robert Jay Lifton, writes in a parenthesis when introducing the crimes of NAZI doctors in his book Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, [7] "Perhaps Turkish doctors, in their participation in the genocide against the Armenians, come closest, as I shall later suggest)." and drowning. Oscar S. Heizer, the American consul at Trabzon, reports: "This plan did not suit Nail Bey…. Many of the children were loaded into boats and taken out to sea and thrown overboard." [8] The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini, writes: "I saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which were capsized in the Black Sea." [9] Hoffman Philip, the American Charge at Constantinople chargé d'affaires, writes: "Boat loads sent from Zor down the river arrived at Ana, one thirty miles away, with three fifths of passengers missing." [10]
These are all impressive claims and some there are appearently some supports but are these supports, evidences reliable? How much you can trust in a psychiatrist who is trying to be a historian? How much you can trust people who wanted Ottoman Empire to be crushed? How much you can trust in someone(Vahakn N. Dadrian-Armenian name) who is not actually that objective? How much you can trust in the testimony of poor peasants? And if all these evidences are reliable and real, why didn't British investigators found them and proved the claim of Armenian Genocide after WWI when they were investigating and trying it?--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am just examining the reliability of the sources, unfortunately it is a common mistake in this article as well as objectivity.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion, Lonewolf95. Montyofarabia (talk)
You are right, sir, that is my idea but keep in mind that this is also the idea of people who are tryig to find the truth about this subject.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Constantinople-Istanbul
This article refers Istanbul as Constantinople. After the city was conquered by Ottoman Empire, it was called Istanbul. So in 1915 the city was called Istanbul not Constantinople. However this article says "The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople.". It should be "...in Istanbul." (Of course that sentence should show references too, since such a claim should be proved) Reffering Istanbul as Constantin--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)ople is very wrong and it should be corrected. Also if there is such a mistake throughout the article, of course it shoul be corrected.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Constantinople was renamed to "Istambul" by the Turks in 1923. Prior to that it should be referred to as Constantinople. As the genocides took place before the renaming it should be called Constantinople. FYI "Istanbul" is also derived from Greek.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- To quote from WP:PLACE
- Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For example, when discussing the city now called Istanbul, Wikipedia uses Byzantium in ancient Greece, and Constantinople for the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and also the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, use Stalingrad when discussing the city now called Volgograd in the context of World War II. For more details on this subject see Wikipedia:Proper names.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Still, that is wrong because Istanbul was conquered by Ottoman Empire at 1453 and after that it was refered as Istanbul not Constantinople. And when it was 1923 there was no renaming, it was just saved from British Army as Istanbul. And when the city was the capital of Ottoman Empire, it was always Istanbul because if you think it would be stupid for an Ottoman padishah-king- to use the name of a Byzantine king for his capital city. But I understand why there is a mistake because the wiki site for Constantinople is a little bit mistaken about it too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Appearently, I couldn't explain myself since Istanbul was made Constantinople again after I have just changed. Refering Istanbul as Constantinople is wrong because after 1453 the city is called Istanbul and since 1915 is after 1453 the city should be called Istanbul. At least let us correct this mistake so that at least minor mistakes are gone.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Two references have been added which are quite clear as to the name of the city. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lonewolf94, as a general note in relevance to similar issues, by your logic (excluding that there are references for your mentioned issue being wrong) if Urartians called their Kingdom Biaynili, other names (of the same period) should not be used. Aregakn (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)(adding to whom the note refers Aregakn (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC) )
OK I will show you your refererence for a commonly known fact. The source says"Finally, weakened by almost constant battle, the Ottoman Turks lead by Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople in 1453. Renamed Istanbul, it became the third and last capital of the Ottoman Empire."[43]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1)Encyclopaedia Britannica is published
- 2)Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source, not some website.
- 3)Why doesn't the "all about Turkey website" mention how the Republic of Turkey passed a Postal Service Law in 1930, stating that it would no longer recognize postage addressed as Constantinople(thus officially changing the name to Istanbul)?
- 4)Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy[44]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, that is coming too. I have just figured out that a Turkey based site might seem suspicious about its reliability. This article says "After being considerably weakened by constant invasions and being cut off from its neighbors by the Ottoman Turks, Constantinople was officially conquered by the Ottomans, led by Sultan Mehmed II on May 29, 1453 after a 53-day siege. During the siege, the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, died while defending his city. Almost immediately, Constantinople was named as the capital of the Ottoman Empire and its name was changed to Istanbul." [45] I belive this one is more objective since it is not Turkey based.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:By the way the reason of that Post Law is the fact that Europeans were still refering the city as Constantinople and by doing that not recognizing Turkish rule of Istanbul. By this Turkey made it clear that city is named Istanbul.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it means that the Republic of Turkey recognized Constantinople as the name of the city, since they had to change their recognition concerning the name of the city. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Changing the name doesn't add to the article. Anybody can click the link and read the history of the city. And, Lonewolf94, once again, if the Kingdom of Urartu or Ararat was called such by Assyrians and the people themselves called the kingdom Biaynili does not mean, that Urartu should not be used. An other thing is about the mountain Ararat. If Turkey has renamed it, should you claim the use of the name Ararat is unacceptable?
- As if some editors are not trying to improve articles but to make at least one, I'd call it, pro-turkish change. Aregakn (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not trying to have a pro-Turkish change, I am trying to improve the article since it is important for people to have the right name of the city which is used at that time. Of course if the article was telling the Byzantine rule of the city, it would be ridiculous for me to say it is Istanbul. But here it should be used as Istanbul, since all these things are claimed to be happened at 1915 and in that time the city was called Istanbul. Here even Wiki site:History of Istanbul's "Ottoman Empire" subtitle's sixth paragraph says "Finally, Constantinople was under Ottoman rule...Before leaving the city, Mehmed declared that Constantinople was to be called Istanbul." And if these are not enough I will try to find an independent and objective published source to prove that.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I am showing you evidence that at that time it was used as Istanbul, what can I do more. I think people should not be obligated to click on the link to find the name of the city at 1915. Lets come to your Mount Ararat issue. Mount Ararat is still refered as that and in fact I have no problem with that because the Turkish name Ağrı is hard for international usage because of "ğ". However the usage of Constantinople implies that people are not recognizing the Turkish rule of the city. That's why we had the Postal Service Law at 1930, to make it clear that Turks are ruling the city since 1453 and we call it Istanbul again since 1453. So that people will understand that Constantinople is Istanbul after 1453 and refering the city as Constantinople is wrong and insulting.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1. I am glad that what you wrote lately clearly shows the true goal of your edits: "That's why we had the Postal Service Law at 1930, to make it clear that Turks are ruling the city...". This change would obviously NOHOW contribute to the article.
- 2. I'd prefer you to have been discrete, rather than refusing my assumption that some editors have in goal to make some "pro-Turkish" change.
- 3. The change neither has any information in it, nor the present name in the article prevents in any way the understanding of the information.
- 4. The pronunciation of the words has no connection to these type of issues. The letter "ğ" can easily be changed into "gh".
- 5. In the other example of the Kingdom of Ararat/Urartu (Biaynili) the pronunciation issue is absent, but you preferred not to address it, didn't you?! Aregakn (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if people accept or not, the city is under Ottoman rule since 1453 and it is called Istanbul since 1453 and I have shown evidence of that and as I said I will show more solid ones. If we think 1915 is after 1453 and that makes it an obligation for us to call the city Istanbul when refering an event at 1915. And don't blame me for pro-Turkish changes because you have been making pro-Armenian changes. And I totally do not understand the reason why you care too much, is it because you think Constantinople is the right usage or do you want to not recognize the Turkish rule of the city? If you ask why I do care, that would be because of the fact I want to correct and improve article by changing that Constantinople into Istanbul-which is the right usage.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a question if your proof are proofs. But regardless that, people know the relevance of the genocide and Constantinople and your change is not adding value but has a goal to prove something that doesn't need to be done on this article. You are welcome to make such change on the article about Istanbul it the first name was used Constantinople instead. Otherwise, your change is irrelevant to the article as it is to any other not concerning the official present names.
- A note: even though Ararat is changed to Aghri to clear the region of historical traces it's no THE name of the mountain and isn't accepted by the world. So, if not the mentioned above law the other name wouldn't have been accepted either. Aregakn (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion is pointless. There is a WP rule about the name of the specific city and it is quite clear. Case closed.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not pointless. I am really hoping that at least this mistake can be corrected. I am not trying to prove something besides of the fact that after 1453 the city is called Istanbul. This article is mistaken by calling Istanbul Constantinople and I am trying to improve the article isn't it the whole purpose of this discussion page?--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, your mistake is ignoring the fact that the Republic of Turkey passed a law changing their recognition of Constantinople to Istanbul. You should work on correcting your mistake. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Look, my base here is the fact that the city is called Istanbul since 1453. The law at 1930 is to say the world that Turks are ruling the city and Turks call it Istanbul and if the world doesn't call it like that Turkey will not accept their letters going to "Constantinople" because since 1453 the city is called Istanbul--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you continue to say, is to say the world that Turks are ruling the city and Turks call it Istanbul and if the world doesn't call it like that Turkey will not accept their letters going to "Constantinople, when it is clear that the law was for the TURKISH POSTAL SERVICE to change ITS recognition of Constantinople to Istanbul. The law was passed for the Turkish Postal Service not for anyone else. Typical WP:SYN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part, trying to imply a different meaning into a law than what it was created to change. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Look, my base here is the fact that the city is called Istanbul since 1453. The law at 1930 is to say the world that Turks are ruling the city and Turks call it Istanbul and if the world doesn't call it like that Turkey will not accept their letters going to "Constantinople" because since 1453 the city is called Istanbul--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not important what Turkey has called it since 1453, what's important is what the rest of the world has called it since 1453. The world knew it as Constantinople until the 1920's, so any references to Istanbul made to the pre-Republican era will have the name as "Constantinople." That's it. Montyofarabia (talk)
You are absolutely right about the fact that world called the city Constantinople in the pre-repuclican era even though the name was Istanbul. And that mistake is what I am trying to correct. The name was Istanbul but people knew it as Constantinople, and now for Wikifans not to do the same mistake, I am trying to correct it--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lonewolf94 forgets that this is not a propaganda site. I'd suggest you, comrade, to think about (once again) ADDING VALUE. Aregakn (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!-sarcasm again- --Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As I promised I found some third party published resources. And one of them is the one which is used to prove that Constantinople is the right usage. I found same Encyclopedia Brittanica and looked at the Constantinople part. It really says that Constantinople is the capital of the Ottoman Empire. However, it doesn't say that it was called like that. Then it adds "In 1930, it was officially renamed Istanbul, as it had long been popularly called." This shows that the city was called Istanbul. Probably, you will say that as wikpedians you are not accepting non-official things. I have only one answer: Look at Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are evidences
[[46]]-"Almost immediately, Constantinople was named as the capital of the Ottoman Empire and its name was changed to Istanbul."
History of Istanbul-"Finally, Constantinople was under Ottoman rule...Before leaving the city, Mehmed declared that Constantinople was to be called Istanbul."
Freely, John. Blue Guide Istanbul. New York: W.W.Norton, 1987.- "Istanbul, Capital of the Ottoman Empire."
Now, is this enough, can I change it in "...in Istanbul"--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about hard up to prove the Republic of Turkey did not pass a law.
- All you have is some online nonsense, and a travel guide?? So now, a travel guide is more authorative than Encyclopedia Britannica?
- And even the online site contradicts itself, http://worldnews.about.com/od/turkey/f/istanbulconstan.htm; After the death of Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, the city was renamed Constantinople and remained so through the reign of the Ottoman Empire. With the Turkish Republic's founding in 1923, the city was renamed Istanbul as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk moved the capital to Ankara.
- Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- And despite having two sources(The Encyclopædia Britannica, & http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368294/Istanbul Britannica, Istanbul ) that clearly state it was Constantinople, I still link it to the popular name of Istanbul. Perhaps since more evidence has been in-advertently provided, it should be linked to Constantinople. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you liked this Postal Law too much ipressed me. However, the reason of that was to send a message to Westerns: If you don't call the city Istanbul, we are not delivering your posts. Now, only thing you can say to me is the fact that the Postal Law was an official declaration as said in Encyclopedia Brittanica "In 1930, it was officially renamed Istanbul, as it had long been popularly called." And if you would like this encyclopedia's citation I would be glad to provide you that. And if you are not happy with the fact that it was inofficial, again I am telling you Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, guys... This discussion is closed! WIkipedia relates the names to the accepted English naming of them or official local in some cases. This case is closed and the name stayes "Constantinople" in accordance to both of these 2 in WP:Names. Why to "waste breath"?! Aregakn (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sir, I am not wasting breath here. I accept the fact that Istanbul is (unfortunately) called Constantinople after 1453 as a common mistake(or as an insult). As I just highlighted and have highlighted many times Constantinople is Istanbul after 1453. However even though it is a mistake the fact that Istanbul is Constantinople in English may be accepted as Ağrı and Ararat issue. But the main problem of this Istanbul-Constantinople issue is the fact that Constantinople is used as an insult since it, in a way, underestimates Turkish rule of Istanbul. The reason of this thought is the fact that after 1453 the city is called Istanbul whereas in an Armenian Genocide related article the city is called Constantinople with the excuse of the Postal Law. It appears that there is something personal in this. In any way don't answer this because I decided not to continue this because appearently thi is such a common mistake that it can't be corrected and people like to insult the Turkish nation (even by using the wrong name of their old capital and their most important city) who has supposedly comitted so-said Armenian Genocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A new paragraph in the Article "Patriocide"
I would like to open an important discussion, in my opinion, to first have it in the attention of the editing community and then think of how to give birth to it in the article.
The issue is about the direct connection of a Genocide of a native population resulting to Patriocide, the loss of not only population, cultural heritage, real estate, financial and other property, the "genofond", the future development of a nation and all other losses which Genocide results into, but also the loss of (call it either of these synonyms) "native land, homeland, fatherland" as a whole or partial.
I do think the article about the Armenian Genocide does lack this issue, which would be a proper, value-adding addition to it. Surprisingly it is missing as a separate paragraph.
Please state your comments and let us have it discussed first. I am sure not only I but also others will have a lot to contribute to the paragraph. Aregakn (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should! Keep in mind that you should also mention how Armenia uses so-said Armenian Genocide so that they can unite the Armenian Diaspora by using Patriocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you're trying to insure yourself as a disruptive commentor and editor with propagandist goals and 0 value-adding, you are succeeding! Aregakn (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand why are you mad at me, I am supporting you, of course with some additions. Whee, Patriocide!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aregakn, I don't see anything in my books on the Genocide about "patriocide". What sources do you have? Sardur (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not mean the term itself. You surely see in them(the sources you have) the loss of their (the Armenians) motherland due to the Genocide and this is what I thought valuable to concretise. Likewise the human and cultural losses, in a separate paragraph it would be correct to mention and describe the (partial) loss of the historical motherland of the people. I wanted to concentrate on the idea of having a separate paragraph about that issue and hear oppinions, and then start to work on the paragraph and it's wording.
- As for the term "Patriocide" itself (or, as I call it, Patridocide), it seems to be relatively new for use. The phenomenon of full or partial loss of the historical land (fatherland, motherland) due to a genocide seems not to be coined with a separate term by many. Though I am sure the use of that very term, if required, can be found in different publications. Aregakn (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Call it "Patriocide" if you like, or simply call it "Consequences", but there could indeed be a section explaining the many direct and indirect consequences of the Armenian Genocide, one of which is the exposure of more than half of the world Armenian population to assimilation. --Davo88 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting idea to have that section. The so called Patriocide indeed is a consequance of the mass slaughter. And of course so is the assimilation of the nation and the loss of identity both, in the republic of Turkey and the refugies out of Turkey. This is a concequance of loosing the homeland so should also be included in the new chapter of "Patriocide". IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Good! So we are already having some skeleton of the section: loss of motherland with no compact Armenian inhibited areas, towns, villages and assimilation of the population and cutting from roots and communities both in and outside of Turkey. Aregakn (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lonewolf94, do not make baseless and irrelevant comments and spam the talk-pages! Neither change the "UTC" to "UTW" near my comments. It's getting out of control already. Aregakn (talk)
- I am really sorry for UTC thing. I erased that by mistake and appearently corrected it incorrectly. But I would be happy if you didn't erase my comments, you may not like my comments but you don't have any right to do that.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oookaaayy.... as I see, some "summer holiday" is around :). As the Muslims say "If Mohammed doesn't go to the Mountain, the Mountain goes to Mohammed". I promise I will be trying to find the academia researches for this issue during this week. It will require lots of work in libraries, but I'd like to do it. Guys, please come back from the holidays soon... I am even happy to hear "opponents" :). Aregakn (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
An article which more more or less corresponds to what you want to prestent, Aregakn: http://www.hayq.org/upload/files/Strategic_Consequences_of_Armenian_Genocide_%28Azg_Daily%29_ENG.pdf --Davo88 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... yes. Thanks! Yet will be looking for some more researches... pity couldn't find yet. Aregakn (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Obama's speeches on April 24
Hittit, you are making disruptive edits, as there is not said that President Obama used the term Genocide. Vice-Versa, it is said that he did NOT use it in his April 24 speaches.
The sentence states what you are telling: "In April 24 commemoration speeches President Obama has yet referred to the Armenian Genocide by the Armenian synonym Metz Eghern ("Mec Eġeṙn")."
1. Taking away "has yet" makes it seem indefinite which is wrong; it is the 2nd time he didn't use it and so it is "yet" until he isn't president anymore.
2. He referred to the Armenian Genocide when calling it Meds Yeghern. Or did he refer to some other Armenian "issue", as your change states? Maybe to the Armenian gas pipeline? Or the political debate over the budget expenditure?
Why your edits are disruptive? You are changing the meaning of the sentence by the above mentioned edits:
"In April 24 commemoration speeches President Obama referred to the Armenian issue only by the Armenian synonym Metz Eghern ("Mec Eġeṙn")."
The sentence said about some Armenian issue Obama refers to as Metz Yeghern all the time. Obviously you wish to see it so but it isn't.
Your comment for the change you made is "still no sign of the word "genocide" in Obama's speech therefore you cannot quote Obama saying it". As I stated in the first paragraph, there is no place in the sentence, where it states, that Obama used the term genocide in his April 24 speeches until now, so your reasoning is false.
If you do not present a reason on the talk-page why the sentence is wrong, please do not make disruptive edits. Aregakn (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is so hard to understand, if Obama did not intentionally use the word "genocide" when he referred to the faith Armenians during WWI then why do you want to stick a redirect sentece to imply that he actually meant the English word "genocide"? If he has substituted "genocide" for "Meds Yeghern" then he does not want to refer to it as "genocide" in plain English full stop. Are you the personal speech maker of Obama? you what he meant? Hittit (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are failing to show where in that sentence it's written, that Obama mentioned the term "Genocide" in his Apr 24 speeches. I have shown that it states that he didn't mention that term. Either cite from the sentence what states he said it or, if not, it is clearly a [|refusal to get to the point, leave alone the possibility of WP:TE.
- Please comment not on who I might be for/to Obama even as a joke. Aregakn (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If he didn't say it why you want to redirect the sentence to indicating that he meant the "Armenian Genocide"? Hittit (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me!? Do you mean he spoke not of the Armenian Genocide but, say, the Armenian external debt? Aregakn (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, Hittit I think this is not really that important. I wouldn't like to offend you of course. My reason is Obama is a politician. He says the things that will not destroy his country's relationships with Armenia and Turkey. That's why he said such good things about Turks and then said Meds Yeghern or whatever so. He is not interested in the truth, he is interested in his foreign relationships and his political career. But of course if you want go for this Meds Yeghern thing, I would say go for it, at last we are here to discuss some additions like this one.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any ARMENIAN town city or village in Turkey
Can somebody add that in Turkey there is not any Armenian village: afer thousand and thousand years of presences, nowsaday in Turkey there is no Armenian village--Alsace38 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. This, I think, is what the above proposed paragraph of "Patriocide", as I conventionally refered to, should include. So let us concentrate the efforts to "build it up". Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course there is no Armenian villages. Mostly because of the deportation and then migration to the Armenian state after WWI. Then they integrated to the urban life. This fact proves nothing but itself: there is nomore Armenian villages.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you may have a POV as well. Of course, this article is about the Armenian Genoide and it contains the fact of forceful deportations after division (and murder) of most of men from the rest of the population and the facts of massacres on their way. What you say is mentioned in the article already. Thank you for bringing it up again, but no need to repeat oneself. Aregakn (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well all Turkey says that there wasn't any genocide, but when you see that only "1" village is present in Turkey, that means we have loste thousand and thousand villages: what did they become?
If we say no genocide? so where are all armenian heritage, that's mean there was an "ETHNIC CLEANING OF ARMENIANS"!--Alsace38 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, rhetorics isn't useful in Wikipedia, usually. I'd like to ask and suggest you all concentrating on contributions to the articles of knowlegde. As this topic is directly what a loss of motherland is ("Patriocide"), I'd like to urge you all to participate in the discussion of how to add to the value of it. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Demands for Armenian genocide reparations
The reparations issue is not really present in this article nor in any related articles listed in the template. However, demands for reparations clearly do exist, they are a reality even though Turkey has not granted any reparations due to its non recognition of the genocide. So I was wondering if it would be a good idea to talk about the demands for Armenian genocide reparations either here and/or create a separate article and list it in the template. Thanks. --Davo88 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the Information and sources we have can be presented in an appropriate way with no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation in the manner, that it will constitute a WP:Notability, then a separate article can exist on the issue. The problem is, that in the article there is little about non-population losses. And so having little said about the losses one can little say about reparations. This is what I encourage editors to involve in and this is why I proposed the Patriocide as a loss (in it's main territory) of motherland. I think, when we constitute a good division of all other than human losses in this article, we might be able to separate into an independent article. Aregakn (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a preliminary version of the article - Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations. --Davo88 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How is it possible to add an article on this page? Im new at this. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianPhD (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merge
I propose merging Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a section in this article. The article on "Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations" is a mix of WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE and arguing the primary case. Much of it is redundant repetition of only the pro case. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Guy, I agree there was an AfD on the subject, article should be merged on the parts that are not WP:Cristall Ball. Clearly the whole thing is WP:CFORK,WP: POVFORK,WP: Synthesis,WP:SOAP and a probable WP:COPYVIO. Nothing prevents for nominating again for AfD. --Hittit (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Guy, you must not be very serious, the page is 145 kilobytes long, many material need to be shortned and articles created on them to make the reading overal more easy. Are you seriously asking it to be merged with an article that long? Undue? The subject of reparation is probably one of the most debated item in the agenda and this since the 20s. I think a rename would be more accurate, which would cover the material loss as well as the demands for reparation. Ionidasz (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- A rename is discussed on the talk-page and was agreed to (or with no negative comments) by almost all in the deletion.
- As for the comments of Hittit, those are irrelevant. SOAP, SYNTH, COPYVIO etc. (he was told before as well) are not to exist in any place in Wikipedia. He clearly has only 1 goal, to get rid of the article with 0 reasoning. Neither could/did he ever bring any such issues.
- The Article of reparations is an essential separate topic with all its atributes as the international law, etc. and by itself constitutes notability. I see no bases for even proposing a merge neither is there a POV to claim forking. Aregakn (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge the reparations article with the Genocide article. If there exists a distinct article about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, an issue that is closely related with the reparations issue, why should the reparations article be merged? Besides, the AG article is extensive enough in itself, and it would be unwise to lengthen it even more. --Davo88 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... nice way, Guy. U did well to cover disruptive editing of Hittit in the ANI and u also bring his issues up. I wonder if this is coincidence.
- What are the "pros" Guy? what is in reparations issue to be pro or anti or POV? I hope u can explain ur position and u were interested in discussion rather than only rising the question Hittit wanted and leaving. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no reason to merge the reparations article with the Genocide article. If there exists a distinct article about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, an issue that is closely related with the reparations issue, why should the reparations article be merged? Besides, the AG article is extensive enough in itself, and it would be unwise to lengthen it even more. --Davo88 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Information about the jewish community
I removed the following information: The Jewish community in Constantinople hid many Armenians in their homes during the riots and the local synagogue was therefore attacked by Muslims on Yom Kipur in September the same year[11]. with the comment: "Although the fact is interesting, it is quite anecdotical in such a general article where only the main facts should be presented. It is enough to mentıon it on Hamidian Massacres". Aregakn revert me, and then added a comment on my discussion page : You are welcome to participate in the discussions of the Armenian Genocide article. But before reverting an edit claiming that it is unneeded, pls discuss it. And I am sorry but an other claim of yours that the info is on Hamidian massacres page is not true. First of all, I would like to make clear that I didn't said that the fact was on the page Hamidian Massacres but that it was enough to mention it there. This stated, I would like to reach an agreement regarding this quotation. Such a general article should only mention very general facts and not unecessary details. Here the subject is not the Hamidian massacres but the Armenian genocide. Therefore, the account of this massacre should be kept as simple as possible. My proposition is the following : 1)add the information into the article Hamidian massacres. 2) Remove it from this article.--Kimdime (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The nature of the article is too general and too oriented toward the Ottoman Empire's internal conditions and intl. politics to focus on another community's very specific actions during a single event. Something like that may be appropriate in the lower section of the article, detailing the reaction of the non-Armenian communities during the genocide, but not in the general lead-up of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. But first of all, deleting information with summary "It is enough to mentıon it on" when this is not mentioned there and neither did you change it's location, is simply deleting relevant information. It simply means "I'll delete, you do with it whatever". Secondly, I tried to let you know simply deleting/blanking isn't the propper way. Calling that info's presense on this article "anecdotical" is also irrelevant, though it can show why you didn't add it to Hammidian's. Thank you for copying messages to invite to discussions to discussion pages. It is very relevant. Aregakn (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- ALl I want to say is that blanking in this manner is unacceptable. The rest I leave to others to decide as I hate clicking 100 articles (and forgetting where I was before) to know the whole story about 1 thing even if people think it's practical. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Done--Kimdime (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
References
- ^ Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. New Brunswick, N.J., 2000, pp. 181, 183.
- ^ See, British Foreign Office 371/2781/264888, Appendices B., p. 6).
- ^ B. Ye'or, The Dhimmi. The Jews and Christians under Islam, Trans. from the French by D. Maisel P. Fenton and D. Liftman, Cranbury, N.J.: Frairleigh Dickinson University, 1985. p. 95)
- ^ Vahakn N. Dadrian, The Turkish Military Tribunal’s Prosecution of the Authors of the Armenian Genocide: Four Major Court-Martial Series, Genocide Study Project, H. F. Guggenheim Foundation, published in The Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 1997
- ^ Vahakn N. Dadrian, The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I Genocide of Ottoman Armenians, in The Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1, no. 2 (1986): 169–192
- ^ Jeremy Hugh Baron, Genocidal Doctors, publish in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, November, 1999, 92, pp. 590–3)
- ^ Basic Books, (1986) p. xii:
- ^ U.S. National Archives. R.G. 59. 867. 4016/411. April 11, 1919 report.
- ^ Toronto Globe, August 26, 1915
- ^ Cipher telegram, July 12, 1916. U.S. National Archives, R.G. 59.867.48/356. The Trabzon trials reported Armenians having been drown in the Black Sea. (Takvimi Vekdyi, No. 3616, August 6, 1919, p. 2.)
- ^ http://www.jpress.org.il/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveGifMSIE_TAUHE&Type=text/html&Locale=hebrew-skin-custom&Path=HMZ/1896/09/25&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00201&PageLabel=2 | Article from Jewish newspaper Ha-Melitz, 25/09/1896
The Historian
This article needs the points of view of many different historians who accept the Armenian Genocide and also the historians who deny the Armenian Genocide. My history knowledge accepts the deportation and mutual massacres that are done by independent irregulars. But of course I am Turkish and although I do not doubt my objectivity and knowledge, I can understand if it is doubted. However remember that many contributors of this article are Armenian. In any way our nations should not interfere. Now, I will suggest a historian whose researchs can contribute to this article, this historian is called Levon Panos Dabagyan. Mr.Dabagyan is a respected Armenian historian whose objectivity is not suspicious. He denies the Armenian Genocide as an Armenian without considering his personal and national feelings. He says “In 1915 genocide was not committed in Ottoman Empires. Those who claimed that genocide was committed must learn history much better. Armenian issue is very important fort he West. Because it has been used against Turkey. At that time people was exiled but not massacred. These operations must be regarded as issues originating from political aims and Kaiser’s Germany lied behind these issues”. According to Dabagyan, Armenians and Turks had lived together within the framework of good neighborhood for centuries until these events. But in 1915 Armenians who revolted in eastern Turkey were exiled. [47]
I hope that this particular historian can contribute and I would like to have more historians to tell the every aspect and everything of Armenian issue.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- All your denialist scholars are "off the board" now. There is only 1 left who is 180 degrees compromised. Enough of making anouncements on talk-pages and spamming them!
- You better don't rely on your history knowlegde that relies on your countries official point of view. Aregakn (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sir, even though I wouldn't like to say this, doesn't your history knowledge rely on your country's or your community's "official point of view"? We can both be affected, everyone can be affected. That's why I reccomend to have many different points of view of many different and objective historians and also to have official documents as evidences. In this way we can tell the everything of the Armenian issue in Wikipedia.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well well. Another denialist. I find it quite funny how they want to prove their point by bringing up an "Armenian scholar" in the arena. Here's an answer to you.First of all- he is not an Armenian. He lives in Turkey and has claimed numerous times that he is Turkish.If he doesn't wish to be Armenian, why do you forcefully put that label on him ? Secondly, Dabagyan is not your average historian. If I were to grade him I would probably say...maybe "unsatisfactory " ? He has not read the history if he claims that massacres didn't occur because even his "daddy Ataturk" admitted that killings did occur,how people were burned alive, villages burned, mass killings, so on and so forth. Dabagyan is no historian and will never be one for his lack of knowledge. Where was he at the 1990 Historic Congress when all the other denialists were present? Let him get out of elementry school faculty (where they obviously since 2003 included the denial in the curriculum, in other words -official denial) then maybe I will consider debating with his fictional perspectives of 1915. --ArmenianPhD (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr.ArmenianPhD, initially I would be happier and you would be more civilized and respectful if you do not mock with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Secondly, Mr.Dabagyan tells that he is Turkish even though he is Armenian because according to Atatürk and many civilized and respectful Turk if you feel that you are Turkish you are Turkish without considering your genes. If Mr.Dabagyan can say that he is Turkish without considering his genes, he is probably the best one to not care where he cames and keep his objectivity. But of course he is just an initial offer as a historian who can be helpful to this article. I would also be happier if you cited "even his "daddy Ataturk" admitted that killings did occur,how people were burned alive, villages burned, mass killings"--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Lonewolf94, my civilized manners are displayed in my talk, so I suggest you reread my paragraph. Whatever was in my paragraph was a fact and not an insult. You deny the Genocide, I called you a denialist, Ataturk is the "father of Turks" so I referred to him as "daddy" and lastly Mr. Dabagyan is not someone I can refer to as Prof. or scholar as he has not read vital facts of those years and whatever he says is so simple, one sided, and not fully displayed that it can be taught to a 5th grader or what not as a way of propoganda. As far as your reply is concerned, you have a natural ability to concentrate on unimportant things as I have noticed in various postings of yours. His genes do not concern me whatsoever, but you keep repeating "the Armenian scholar this.. the Armenian scholar that..."He calls himself a Turk, then he is a Turk ! I have much to say but youre just going off topic, so stay on topic and stop hanging from words and giving suggestion on how to refer Mr. Dabagyan or give me lecture on bilogical genes as Im a fully focusted on history. P.S. if youre going to reply with non important message, please dont bother ( this is not an insult). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianPhD (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, Lonewolf. The propaganda does not have an effect on me as much as it has on you. Points of views cannot exist about facts. They can exist about details accompanying those facts. you never presented any single reason, issue that would claim those many references in the article are 1 POV all together, and then to say you need to have other POVs. What makes you believe state propaganda rather than thousands of scholars (professionals in their field) world-wide? Is it a tendency you cannot get rid of?? Tell me, are those the scholars, who signed the statement to the US Congress in 1985, that you mean by telling "professionals" and "objective"?
- So, 2 questions:
- What reasonable basis do you claim the references in the non-objective?
- Do you want to consider the scholars that made a statement to the House of Congress of the USA as objective?
- Aregakn (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sir, everyone's objectivity can be questioned in such a sensitive article. I would like to remind you that also many professional and objective historians don't recognize the Armenian Genocide, Mr.Dabagyan is one of them. Besides scholarship is unreliable because Armenian scholarship says that so-said Armenian Genocide is real but Turkish scholarship says that so-said Armenian Genocide is not real. That is not logical if scholarship is reliable. The references are unreliable because they belong to nations which were the enemies of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. They needed a proof that Turks are fierce killers whom should be stopped by the superior West. Besides different points of view of professional historians are not POVs. That means either they collected different evidences or they interpreted the evidences differently. That's why there should be more historians, so that we can interpret their work.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your POV but this is not based on academia. I do not know wha Dabagyan you are talking about and yet I didn't see any references to reliable academia. One more VERY important thing, if you are willing to discuss the issue of Genocide or not Genocide, then please read the beginning of this page and cease it once and for all. Any such discussion will be removed immediately as mentioned above about what is not to be discussed on this talk-page. Aregakn (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am not discussing the existence of so-said Armenian Genocide. I am telling that we should add the works of historians who deny and the ones who accept the genocide and inform Wikifans about their work and let them judge the existence of the Armenian Genocide. So that noones thoughts affect Wikifans' thoughts because there will be so many aspects of this subject that people can choose the one which they are convinced that it is right.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome to contribute to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Turkey's Offer
The Republic of Turkey oferred to have a historian committee who will search the Armenian and Ottoman documents. The goal of this committee would be to find the truth about the so-said Armenian Genocide by using historical documents. Unfortunately the Republic of Armenia didn't accept this offer. This fact can contribute to this article by stating the Turkish actions to solve the Armenian issue.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Enough announcements. This was discussed with you already! Re-read above!! Aregakn (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I remember discussing this with you but I wanted to make a part for it this time to have many people's ideas about it. This fact is useful because the Turkish nation is accused of so-said Armenian Genocide and it is important for Wikifans to know the Turkish efforts to solve this issue that continues nearly for a century.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you do remember discussing it, you'd have to have remembered, that Armenia did not refuse and offered even a wider variety of issues, not only historical, to be addressed, to which there was NO response. But now, knowing it's not the case, you once again claim that Armenia refused...
- In addition, the recent protocols between Armenia and Turkey, that were in very much favor of what Turkey wanted, were signed. Armenia made its way through several instances, required by the constitution, and brought it to the parliament very fast. More than 1 year passed and Turkey has done 0! There you can see an inter-governmental commission which will have 2 governmental sub-commissions: on legal issues and on historical issues. Tell me, isn't the latter the invitation that Turkey sent? A commission to discuss historical documents and issues (probably in the legal aspect)? And tell me if Turkey has ratified it?
- Now tell me, considering both of these issues, do you have any single reason to bring it up here or you should better bring it up on the articles of Turkey to mention, that Turkey refused any friendly relationships with Armenia, including a governmental sub-commission on historical issues? Enough is enough of these lies, Lonewlf! You, I do really hope, probably speak of these issues not seein the whole picture and not willing to see, and, if so, you aren't the liar but the state propaganda you believe in. Aregakn (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- yes, the title of this discussion is wrongly chosen by lonewolf94. It should be about turkish lies and fake agreement signing with a goal to delay the international recognition of the Genocide. This issue should be discussed and decided to have it in this article in a summary and a bigger part in the recognition article. Good point Lonewolf94! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr.Aregakian, first of all I want you to be calm and not change my discussion's title again. It is rude. I remember the Armenia's offer of the "wider variety of issues". Turkish Prime Minister did not respond to that because that offer of "wider variety of issues" has already reached a verdict that Turkey is guilty of the so-said Armenian Genocide. This offer did not give a chance to Turkey to defend themselves. As you would know the crimes are tried to charge the crime or to find the existence of the crime. In a trial you got the defendant and the prosecutor and also the evidences. But if you reach a verdict before fully interpreting evidences and listening the defendant it would not be legally fair. However Turkey's offer wants to have historical evidences from both nations and to interpret them with historians. This is more fair. Though you have a point in there, Turkey's offers are not totally sufficient. The best way to solve this issue is to have a "really" objective international court which will have Armenian and Ottoman documents as evidences, historians as witnesses and Armenian and Turkish delegates as the prosecutor and the defendant. But Turkey has an effort. I would also like to remind you that Mr.Sarkisyan canceled the Armenian-Turkish protocols(which was better for Armenia because it stopped the Turkish embargo) at 24 April 2010. I hope that these information can be helpful to Wikipedia.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- 1st of all, I did not change the title.
- 2ndly, I asked rhetoric questions to let you see how inappropriate your topics might look like when having all the info.
- 3rdly, I appreciate you speak for the government and assume what you claim as facts, but this isn't what others do.
- 4thly, you say that Armenia has it clear. Not only Armenia has it clear but all the reputable academia and scholars.
- 5thly, if Armenia has it clear and there'd be no discussion of it, it is as a minimum hypocritical from Turkey's side to offer this.
- 6thly, offering 1 thing and refusing that same thing makes Turkish government look even more hypocritical, as a minimum.
- 7thly, this is not the article of Turkish external politics so either you speak of the genocide, by ceasing using turkish denialist expressions like "so called genocide" etc. (because even for an unaware reader it is clear, how tendentious your comments, issues and most probably edits are/will be). Or propose such edits on the external politics of Turkey and I will add to it. Aregakn (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Armenians are rejecting the committee which was suggested by Turkey. It means Armenians or their supporters are escaping from something. (they escape from the TRUTH?) Maverick16 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sir, this discussion is being stupidly political. How about a solution which is fine for both of us and useful for the article. Lets add Turkey's offer and Armenia's offer in a section and give short facts about both of them.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can't know that Maverick. They might have their own reasons or you are right. Unfortunately we can't discuss it but we can let people think that if we can ggive this fact to them.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maverick16 has to restrain from racistic announcements and also learn to read discussions before making announcements for spamming talk-pages. Aregakn (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No relevance to the genocide. Your target article should be "Turkey Armenia relations". Aregakn (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't say that we should have paragraphs for these offers. We should may be mention them in the Relief section shortly since it is relevant to the efforts to solve this issue. But you are right the main relevance is "Turkey Armenia relations".
- I do not have a specific goal, sir. Unfortunately those things happened unintentionally. When I wanted to sign my comments, the program put my signature to somewhere else. Sorry about that, I will try to make sure that it will not happen again.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. As you seen, I didn't ask about it when the "re-signing" occurred but when the deletion of my comment did as the 1st could be an incident the 2nd - not. Aregakn (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh! rereading your comments I noticed that you yourself stated the intentions of Turey to abuse those protocols to deny or delay the international recognition of the genocide. A point I noticed in my comment to yours at the Recognition article of the Genocide. You said just what I was telling. Allowing Turkey to abuse the protocols for that goal for the 2nd year be an act of sheep not learning the wolf only wants to eat them and doesn't want to be friends. Please don't have that a bad idea about Armenia's politicians. This is a lesson they will not forget when dealing with Turkey and this was a chance for Turkey that will not come back so easily. Aregakn (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. As you seen, I didn't ask about it when the "re-signing" occurred but when the deletion of my comment did as the 1st could be an incident the 2nd - not. Aregakn (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, lets say that Turkey's offer is hypothetically delaying the recognition. Wouldn't you delay your marking as a slaughterer without any valid evidence and objective trial? Besides can you, sir, show me where I said such a thing. I have only said that history comittee will either fasten the recognition or destroy the recognition of so-said Armenian Genocide, Turkey is taking that risk and their offer should be mentioned as well as Armenia's offer. Besides the political meaning of these offers should not be important for us, the fact should be important.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, reading it once again, I misinterpreted your comment about "embargo" in the comment: "...remind you that Mr.Sarkisyan canceled the Armenian-Turkish protocols(which was better for Armenia because it stopped the Turkish embargo) at 24 April 2010." I connected it to the 24 April in your sentence, the Genocide commemoration, because the anouncement of the president was made not on the 24th but on the 23rd, and so interpreted "embargo" not as a blockade but the tries to "block"/prevent Obama referring to the Genocide as such in his speech as the US president.
- Well, maybe for you the delay seems hypothetical, but it is also factual and it is also perceived so by the international community and Armenia alike.
- As for the agreements being good for Armenia, we can tell these things only comparatively. The border closed by Turkey is more a problem for Turkey in the sense, of the EU (aggression towards neighbors), and it is always marked in all the Eu or EC papers as negative only for Turkey; economically Turkey is more powerful and has more resources/products to export, than Armenia so in the sense of taxes and developments Turkey loses financially more; Armenia's economy was totally devastated because of it, but now Armenia lives and develops without that border open, Armenia doesn't depend on that border at all! Turkey's eastern regions do not develop because of the Genocide's devastating heritage, Armenia develops as it was. So in the sense of what Armenia "losing" something, it's not true. Only didn't gain. Turkey still loses, because the EU will stay closed until the border is closed. And it is in the interests of Turkey to change the perception of Europe towards it, as a non, military, totalitar, theocratic through reforms in legislation (including the genocide issue) and opening the borders. As for Armenia, the only gain is 1 railroad, transportation rout, that yet needs to be renovated and there'll be years until it starts working. One more thig, for everybody Turkey looks like "the master which obeys the doggy", as Turkey itself, losing a lot from the blockade ang gaining nothing, does it for Azeris, and it does not at all look like Turkey is a country with a political will to do even for it's own good, leave alone for the good of the region, Europe or the World. The picture of Turkey being a non-reliable partner in the international arena fades as it changes its intensions after signing a document. So again, it is obvious, that by Turkey delaying the ratification, Armenia loses at least not more than Turkey, leave alone that all the economists and politicians would understand, that it's much more, than Armenia loses.
- As for S. Sarkisyan recalling the documents from ratification: he always announced, that as the leader of the political majority, he assured multiple times publicly, that Armenia will ratify them if Turkey does it in proper timing. The protocols passed the required conclusion by the Constitutional Court and a with a lot of opposition, it went into the Parliament, waiting for Turkey for 1 year. Once again, let you or Turkish government(s) not think Armenia would become part of their games and their puppet in the international arena. If Armenia showed that it is ready not to put a precondition of the Genocide recognition and reparations but wishes to establish neighborly and friendly relationships to be able to discuss things with the neighbor "sitting at a table and drinking tea and coffee with Rahat Lokhum and Pakhlava" and not in courts or arbitrage. In the civilised world courts are a need only when there is no mutual agreement. Turkey was the one to refuse this above mentioned. And don't worry, if it continues, the time for ONE MORE court will come again.
- If you have read the article and my previous comments in our (me and your) other discussion, you should have remembered, that there was a court in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish government was found guilty. There was also an international court by the Allies and the Turkish Government was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. There was a court according to the agreement of all the sides and the arbitrary court even decided some reparations to be given to Armenians/Armenia. If you wish one more, there will be one more. But this time it will be a little different, because the gains of Turkey on the bases of what it got from the Genocide (economic grouth, taxes from the lands and property in the Turkish territory etc.) are multiplying year-by-year. And by the way, the losses of Armenia in this sense (including but not limited to the blockade/embargo) are also increasing, and those will become a subject of reparations by the 2nd court. Believe me, Turkey itself doesn't want it or if it does, then the State heads must be only deluding its people and probably themselves. Any more qustions? Thank you, thank you! Aregakn (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Armenian Lobbying in US during the Genocide
I suggest the topic mentioned in the heading be added to the Armenian Genocide page or it can be added to "Relief" section of the general page because most of those relief organizations was the aftermath of tireless works of numerous prominant high level individuals. There is overwhelming amount of information in several books that I recently absorbed. I will post some resources real soon. Meanwhile, please inform me if it is a good idea. Upon acceptance, please add more information if possible.
--ArmenianPhD (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not a good idea to make the article even bigger and less readable. The article is about the genocide and not the work of different organisations. It can maximum be linked to the Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- During the Genocide?? I hadn't paid attention to this part... But still I think the maximum is a sumarry we can include. Don't know... Aregakn (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, yes, during the genocide several Armenians in United States tirelessly worked closely with numerous government officials, including Senators and what not. They religiously sent letters to the president and those were official letters that were actually being read by the president himself.
--ArmenianPhD (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... would you see it under the dividion "Contemporaneous reports and reactions" with a separate sub-title? Aregakn (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear editors, please discuss the proposed moves (change of titles) of the related articles of Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. The propositions are Armenian Genocide recognition and Armenian Genocide denial accordingly. they are discussed on the talk-pages of those articles talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Aregakn (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think the reason why it was called "Denial of the Armenian Genocide is that the relation between the three words is clearer. Saying Armenian Genocide denial could also mean "Genocide denial by Armenians" which of course does not make sense. Same thing for the recognition article. --Davo88 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think here comes the help of the term "Genocide" to be with capital letter, which makes it a name of the very genocide it is about. I was also looking into the article of Holocaust denial just to see an example. Aregakn (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Khojaly Massacre
First of all I know that Khojaly Massacre has nothing to do with this article. But if you go to the article, you would see two sections as "Armenian Perspective" and "Azeri Perspective". Wouldn't such a thing be useful and helpful for this page like "Armenian Perspective" and "Turkish Perspective"? --Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- 2 different issues: 1 is well known, researched and historically proven, the other hasn't gone through even an official investigation being a relatively recent event and has very many hidden sides and no confirmed evidences for those. No comparison is even possible.
- Once again, the perspective of Turkey on this issue, as being the side not interested in the truth, is on the denial article. Aregakn (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Khojaly article as a whole presents what happened according to both sides (which is why links supporting both sides are presented), whereas this one simply presents the Armenian genocide. And also, the so-called "Armenian perspective" is not a simple perspective only limited to Armenians. It is the reality accepted and proven by historians, specialists, and also by Turks, whereas the "Turkish perspective" only has support in the Turkish government, in certain circles in Turkey, and from a couple of historians who are friends of Turkey. --Davo88 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)