Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

simple error

at the end of the second paragraph of 'life under ottoman rule' the following translation is incomplete - 'millet-i sadıka' is translated as 'loyal millet'. millet is not english, it's turkish for 'nation'. i have seen the translation as 'favored nation status' more frequently than others. i suspect that 'loyal [nation]' was used because the paragraph was speaking about loyalty, or the idea of the turks looking favorably upon the armenians undercuts most armenian activists' presuppositions about the relationship between the ottoman empire and the armenian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.227.39 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A CAMPAIGN TO BE WATCHED

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=57290527400#/group.php?gid=57290527400 Enlisting mass numbers of people to come to a Wikipedia page is all right in my books. It is not OK if the intent is to mass edit a page. That would be the equivalent of sock-puppetry. Make what you will of this group AFTER you read its messageboard and news about Wikipedia therein. COYW (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the Turkish-language wikipedia they are being encouraged to invade and vandalise. The various Wikipedias may be free encyclopedias that can be freely edited, but I doubt that their software is in the public domain. Nor is the word "Wikipedia". Maybe its owners should have greater control over the use their products are put. At the moment they seem to be like irresponsible handgun salesmen who will sell their products to anyone, excusing their lack of control by claiming "Wikipedia doesn't spread lies, irresponsible editors spread lies". The Turkish wikipedia isn't too far gone, but others are - the Azeri-language one is a mouthpiece for propaganda. Meowy 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ARMENIANS MASSACRING TURKS!

Why is this article so one sided? Here is something i found accidentally yesterday when i was searching the New York Times dated october 1851. It is about Armenians massacring Turks in the city of Van. But this is not the Van resistance. This happens in 1851! Maybe it is time we should start adding the "other side" of the "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE!" to this article what do you say? Here is the link http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A04E4DD1431E13BBC4153DFB667838A649FDE&scp=8&sq=turkey&st=p It is dated october 9 1851. Here is the first paragraph of the news

“ Rumors are afloat of serious distubances having broken out at Van, in Asia Minor. Towards the latter end of last month, according to my informants, the Christian population, composed mostly of Armenians, had raised the standart of revolt, and had attacked the Mussulmans, who number around 20,000. The number in killed and wounded is extensive, and were it not for Fehatal Bey, The Kurdish chief, who came to restore order, the massacre would have been awful. ”

I say let's add this paragraph to the article and cite the source to so we can give a neutral view of the Armenian genocide. 78.161.71.98 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is significant to the Armenian Genocide. Let alone the paragraph is not clear.--Namsos (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

i think it is very clear for those who are not biased 78.161.71.98 (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then it is a good thing we do not write articles based on what you think. The Myotis (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the above news article is very significant. Actually it demolishes the whole armenian position. Armenians always play the little innocent powerless christian people massacraced by the bloodthirsty moslem Turks just for the thrill of it. The above news article shows that even as early as 1851 Armenian population was constituting a danger to its muslim neighbours. It demolishes the image of little christian lambs living in constant fear of their life. I think "you" can see this very well. That is the reason for your crude hush-up effort and rude tone. And in case you really cannot see this, "you" shouldnt write articles based on what "you" think, and spread your ignorance to the world. 88.237.220.14 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)mehmet

This is a very significant piece of information and your blatantly biased attempts to hush up this fact shows that you should be banned from further contributing to this wiki page. 202.147.183.150 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The genocide took place in 1915 not 1851, adding this source would add nothing to the article. E10ddie (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why do the article have "life under ottoman rule" section? This section details events that are older than 1851.

Yes, the Armenian genocide is a propaganda of Armenian groups in the world. There were a war in that time and Armenians and Turks killed each other. So it's not a genocide, Ottoman soldier didn't killed Armenians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no word on Armenian Hinchak and Tashnak terrorist organisations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.136.69 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first president of Armenia sad, that they have kileed a lot of childs and womans and if they want to become their honour again, they must kill themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.58.95 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is too one sided. It doesn't say anything about the 500 000 ottoman turks/kurds who are killed!sehzades (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In Van resistance stub

There is a grammatical mistake.It's an Armenian woman not women. 155.207.252.110 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The text says:"On April 20, 1915, the armed conflict of the Van Resistance began as an Armenian women who wanted to enter the city,..."It's grammatical incorrect. 155.207.249.41 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I am from turkey.I am also kurd also turk.I can say one thing only::::TURKS have right to attack pkk now bacause they attacked our villages and people at the middle east.I have Armenian friends also in school.My grandfather told me that his father saw that Turks were killing Armenians at Elaziz now Elazıg.BUT::::WHY I ASKED???.I will remember this for my life answer because of the emperialist at like Europe countries and America.This answer is this:We were killing them because they are killing them if we dont kill them they will come to our villages and kill us.Armenians invade my grandfathers village's neigbourhood village.When they invade turk villagers surrundered by Armenians and they push into a mosque.Armenians burn it and lock the doors.It is very horrible isnt it.We have right for everything.The numbers are wrong.You CAN TRUST ONLY ONE PLACE IN TURKEY,IT IS MILITARY.Emperialists have wrong wiritings that there were 2 million Armenians.No,there wasn't.There were 700,000.We know their locations.150,000 at Sivas,100 000 at Elazıg,adnd it goes to 700 000.After the techir law their number decreased by 40% and they returned when the first world war finished.They come their homes from Syria.ONE THİNG:GREEKS DID US MORE HORRİBLE THİNGS YOU CAN EVER THİNK İT BECAUSE ONLY TURKİSH PEOPLE HAVE THESE EXPERİENCES.THİNK ONCE WE ARE NOT LİKE NAZİS OR AMERİCAN SOLDİERS.WE CANT KİLL EVEN A GREEK OR ARMENİAN NOW.bUT GİVE THEM A GUN AND SAY ME TO COME THERE.I AM SURE THAT THEY CAN KİLL US BECAUSE THEY HATE US.......LİKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRİES.TURKS HAVENT GOT ANY ALLİES EXCEPT THE OTHER TURKS LİKE KAZAKH,TURKMEN,KIRGHIZ,OZBEK,UYGUR.ONLY THESE.THINK AGAİN...WE ALL THİNK LİKE THAT.

                                               ONE OF TURKO-KURDISH BOY IN TURKEY  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.74.152 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 

Also, the section begins with "On April 19, 1915, Jevdet demanded...". However It's not clear who he is as there's no previous mention of him before and no clarification afterwards (he's also called Djevdet shortly after; either of the forms should be changed but I don't which one is correct). There needs to be a short explanation of who he is and why he is there.

Also, the text says: ..."city of Van furnish him 4,000 soldiers immediately under the pretexts of conscription. However, it was clear that his goals were to massacre the able bodied men of Van so as there would be no defenders, as he had done in the villages under the pretexts of arms searches, which had turned into massacres."

This is very unclear and confusing. Was Van only occupied by Armenians that his goal was to massacre the able bodied men of Van? Or did he wanted to massacre all able bodied men, including Turks? From the text I get the impression that he's some sort of Turkish general or something so why would he want to make sure that there are no defenders?

Missing "Motivation" section

In the Holocaust article there is section about the motivation as:

Yehuda Bauer argues that:

[T]he basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination, where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations, on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology — which was then executed by very rational, pragmatic means.

Either he is not considering the "Armenian Genocide" a genocide or he thinks that there were motivations that were not based on myths or he is just wrong and there were genocides that were based on myths before also. Which is the case here? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are very confused. Please also remember that this is not a forum. --VartanM (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Erased stuff

I removed the following:

Of an estimated pre-war population of 1.8 to 2.4 million in the six eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire,[3] approximately 1.2 to 1.7 million Armenians were exterminated in government organized deportations and massacres in towns and villages strewn across Eastern Anatolia. Under the pretext of disloyalty, the Ottoman government charged that Armenians were siding with the Russian Empire and stipulated that the deportations were born out of the necessity to preserve national security.

I deleted it because: No credible source that I have ever seen gives a figure of 2.4 million Armenians for just the six Eastern provinces. Even 2.4 million for the whole of the Ottoman Empire may be excessive. Any source that gives a 2.4 million figure should be treated with the same caution as one which gives an excessively small figure (i.e., a figure should not be used unless it is contained in numerous separate and neutral sources - so give me several sources that mention 2.4 million). The introductory section should be about general facts - not distortions: it is a distortion to imply that "eastern Anatolia" was where most Armenians were living and were killed - most victims did not live in eastern Anatolia. No "pretext of disloyalty" cover-story was involved in many of the deportations/massacres, and anyway (and again) that sort of detailed information should be in the main body of the text, not the introductory section. Meowy 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And then Xenophon777 undid the edit. I will wait for a response to my above comments before deciding whether to redo my edit. Meowy 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

When you deleted it you seemed in your comment to the edit to be arguing that the number of Armenians in the eastern vilayets was too high; yet that was sourced and you provided no countersource, nor a reason why the source was not good, other than that the number seemed too high to you. (Why, by the way?) Also, you deleted more than what pertained to the level of the pre-1915 Armenian population in the east. While I know that many Armenians lived in various placed around Anatolia, and beyond, I knew of no reason why the bulk of the Armenian population of Anatolia wouldn't have been found in the east. Would you have either a basis for arguing that the cited source is unsound, or else another source to suggest a different number, or to suggest that other reasons (or no reasons) for the deportations (whether as a pretext or otherwise) were used? Candidly, if you go and re-do your earlier edit as you suggest that you may, it's not like I'm planning to watch it and pop in to undo it. However, in good faith I saw no basis for the removal of the prior text. Xenophon777 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hands off Meowy. This issue has already been discussed ad naseum and there is a supporting article on Ottoman Armenian population figures that is quite balanced and revealing. The comment is both sourced and confirms with what is most widely accepted within academia. You have no right and no basis to delete or change it in any way without overwhelming contrary citation.--THOTH (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking about sources - if we are in the business of accepting sources regardless of their accuracy, like you seem to want, then I must dig out and use the numerous Turkish sources that put the Armenian population at under a million and the figures for those that died at 150,000 or less (as low as 30,000 according to one Turkish "expert"). Meowy 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You do yourself no favors by introducing such laughable Turkish positions.--THOTH 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thoth, your position does not seem to be that objective either... "laughable Turkish positions"?? you are obviously biased and maybe the article would be better off without you tinkering with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.41 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry also contradicts itself. The sentence containing the figures you say are correct, 1.2 to 1.7 million dead in EASTERN ANATOLIA ALONE, is completely contradicted by a later section Armenian_Genocide#Armenian_deaths.2C_1914_to_1918 which says from 300,000 to 1,500,000 dead for ALL OF ANATOLIA. Meowy 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course there is the Ottoman_Armenian_Population entry which, using many sources, gives a maximum Armenian population of 2.5 million FOR THE WHOLE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. It seems that the ONLY source that says 2.4 million for EASTERN ANATOLIA ALONE is this "The War of the World" book, (a general work, as its title suggests). Why does Thoth think it is so precious that its figures alone should be used in the introductory section of this entry? Meowy 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn...this has already all been extensively covered in the archives of this talk page already...--THOTH 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is "yawn" the extent of your argument? Before I made my edit I looked back at all talk page postings for this year, and found no discussion about these 2.4 million Armenian population / 1.7 million dead figures for eastern Anatolia alone. Meowy 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

yup...yawn...http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population and you also may want check out http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_casualties. I believe there were discussions in this talk page preceeding the creation of both of these two articles. --THOTH 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW petty (and unsubstantiated) disputing of (death) figures is one of the most well known tactics of genocide deniers. Plus you have insuficient rational to justify your deletion - particularly since you have not participated in any disucsions of the article and have just come in making unsubstantiated changes.--THOTH 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless and until you can address my point regarding the fact that the population and casualty figures (that I have erased) contradicted population and casualty figures given later in this entry (and in the entry for Ottoman Armenian Population), please stop reverting my edit. Meowy 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor Ottoman Armenian casulaties article neither Ottoman Armenian population article support Thoth contention. There was slightly over 2 million Armenian in the entire Ottoman Empire, and between 600,000 to 1.5 million have died. It is from very unlikely to impossible that there could have been 2.4 million Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Actually both articles Thoth uses support what Meowy is saying not the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.230.183 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So what if you heard it from your grandfathers

Moved the non-article related comment to Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Arguments#So_what_if_you_heard_it_from_your_grandfathers Kerem Özcan (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Article

This article about only an allegations of Armenia. Turkey refuse this define. there isnt any proof about that events defines as a genocide. Acording to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 1.2 bias this article name have to change as 1915 Armenian Events. In 18 Jan 1919, High Superintendent of Police of Britain Admiral Calthrope took 120 suspect about Armenian Genocide. There was a law court in Malta Island. They judge them. britain court didnt find any proof. And Britain court wanted support from US for proof. Because of US had a representatives about this events in Ottoman Country. US says 'We dont have any proof about Armenian Genocide' to Britain Court. At the end of this court, 29 July 1921, Britain court have acquit all of the suspects. this is real. [1]--Qwl (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Try reading WP:NPOV again. This isn't "equal time for opposing ideas where one is credible and one's transparently false, and everyone who has the vaguest clue what they're talking about endorses the former". Flat Earth positions don't make up half of Earth, and Holocaust deniers don't get half the article on the Holocaust. WilyD 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Turkey dont accept Armenian genocide allegations. there isnt any verdict about Turkey dont right. Also Turkey have a verdict against the Armenian Genocide Allegations. i wrote above--Qwl (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Armenian genocide is completely, thoroughly and utterly demonstrated to have occured. This article already gives way more voice to Turkey's position than is really appropriate. Please read WP:NPOV again - it does not mandate equal time to every position, rather it mandates that views and positions that

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

— WP:NPOV

which here means that we give Turkey's official position the weight it deserves, which is less than we're already giving it. Nobody who has the foggiest notion of what they're talking about denies any of the facts as they're laid down. One might easily write Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide to fully explore Turkey's position. But we're trying to write a neutral, fair, balanced and intellectually honest article about the Armenian Genocide, which means we don't pussyfoot around the fact that it occured. Period. WilyD 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That article already exists in Denial of the Armenian Genocide along with Recognition of the Armenian GenocideVartanM (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me there, eh? WilyD 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or advocacy. see the bias: Let the facts speak for themselves. and especially see the WP:EXTREMIST. in this article name must change because it is about wikipedia calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". it is the same as the terrorist define. you never write a terrorist about Y.--Qwl (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Front de libération du Québec (Québec Liberation Front), commonly known as the FLQ, and sometimes referred to as Front de libération Québécois was a left-wing terrorist group in Canada responsible for more than 200 bombings and the deaths of at least five people, which culminated in 1970 with what is known as the October Crisis.

— Front de libération du Québec

When they are, yeah, we do. WilyD 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

wrong is wrong. someone will correct it. but the rules are clear. see WP:EXTREMIST. A lot of country dont accept this allegations, also Turkey refuse it. see:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide Nations and states. this article have bias. dont allow the Turkey documents. Source:Massacre Exerted By The Armenian On The Turks During World War I government document here: [2] See the photos in a web site here: [3] also here: [4] see the malta law court with all the coutries' gov. documents here : [5] --Qwl (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenians are massacred in Subatan by Turks, or other way around?

There is a push from talk to represent those events as Armenians killing Turks. Please share you opinions here. Steelmate (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the writing of my added picture in the article. It have a resource there. someone changed it with opposite one without resources. Please coorect.--Qwl (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the picture as it is about a different event. This is article about Armenian Genocide, not as you call it Massacres of Turks by Armenians. You may want to create a seperate page for that event. Steelmate (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

you especially divides the Armenian allegations with Turkey allegations. You make FAKE. You hide the realites. thats NPOV. You say LIE. you try two show an allegation as a reality. WP:EXTREMIST. --Qwl (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Every opinion is expressed here. You are trying to bring inappropriate information to that article, it deserves a seperate page as I said, just like Khojaly Massacre or Sumgait Massacre. Steelmate (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It could also be mentioned in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide page. Meowy 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Turks have been massacred in quite significant numbers throughout the war (especially in the Izmir area during the Greek occupation of 1919), or in the Armenian provinces, but such events were intercommunal, whereas the Armenian Genocide was masterminded and perpetrated by a responsible government in 1915. Armenians were Ottoman subjects, after all. Therefore, to talk of Armenians killing Turks is nonsense, it may have occurred but it isn't relevant to the subject at hand. I'm particularly impressed by some people's efforts to veer off the subject to some other massacre; why do people take the subject to heart? Massacres were commonplace during that period, especially in the Balkans and Greece, and the genocide was an inappropriate response to the fact that many elements within the Armenian community were cooperating with the Russian Empire to thwart Ottoman authority in the area. Hence, the genocide did happen, humans are ably capable of tremendous inhumanity, widespread massacres of Muslims at the hands of the Ottomans' enemies did take place: end of story! 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Welsh recognition?

Claims are made here, and on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page, that Wales recognizes an Armenian Genocide. The footnote on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page is dead (so cannot be investigated, but from its title does not look like a likely source on which to base this claim). The footnote (number 129) on the Armenian Genocide page, is a link to a National Assembly for Wales web page on which there is a Written Statement of Opinion concerning "Genocide of the Armenians". This would appear to be the basis of the claim of Welsh recognition. If so, it is erroneous.

According to Andrew Chambers of Assembly Parliamentary Services, National Assembly For Wales, "Statements of Opinion are a mechanism for Members to draw attention to issues of concern or highlight achievements by putting their views on a subject on record and canvassing support from other Members. The statements only represent the opinion of Members who subscribe to them. They cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales."

If a Written Statement of Opinion cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales, a Written Statement of Opinion can not be used as the evidence to support the claim that Wales, or the Welsh Assembly, recognizes an Armenian Genocide. This claim needs either to be supported with documented evidence (i.e. a resolution passed by the National Assembly for Wales) or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake the bookbinder (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking (or acknowledging) about genocide being illegal in Turkey

Completely untrue. There are conferences held frequently about it. Some of them had speakers such as Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay. If it was illegal, they would be the first ones to be prosecuted. The "insulting Turkishness" cases are filed by an individual ultra nationalist lawyer. Most of them are dropped in the first case, and there are just a few prosecutions and not all off them are Armenian Genocide related. Of course that doesn't change the fact that Article 301 is a shame, but saying that it's illegal is a misinformation.

Plus there's no law regulating this in anyway. In contrast, it's illegal to deny it in France and Switzerland by law. I wish Hrant Dink was alive, such a wise guy. He was planning to go to France and commit this crime, if he were not to die. May he rest in peace. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Completely untrue. There are conferences held frequently about it" - I bet they are, and there is an army of historians working in Turkey on Armenian Genocide finding new ways to deny it. That I believe. Now name me ONE person in Turkey who acknowledges Armenian Genocide and has not been persecuted. Not all "insulting Turkishness" are because of acknowledging AG, but all those who did acknowledged AG have been persecuted by "insulting Turkishness".Steelmate (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you two names, Berktay and Akçam. As I said, most of the "insulting turkishness" cases are refused by the court before the first hearing. Plus in the cases that are related to AG the defendants are not charged of "acknowledging", but the prosecutors usually pick some parts from their statements, that sound offensive out of its context. For example, Dink was prosecuted for his words "replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk", though what he meant was something completely different [6] Another example is Elif Şafak, a turkish writer, who was brought in front of the court for a speech by one of her novel characters. Plus, unless I'm wrong, until now all the convictions were suspended, and nobody is in jail because of "insulting turkishness". Of course as I said before, this doesn't whitewash the Article 301, or changes the fact that it's a shame for the Turks/Turkish government. It's undeniable that it's a taboo to speak about, and the ones talk about it openly faces a strong phsycological oppression, but it's simply not true that it's illegal to speak about it. Kerem Özcan (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Akçam. Doesn't he live in Germany? Is he still a Turkish citizen? Perhaps Ragıp Zarakolu can be mentioned. Hakob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, strange, but neither in Sweden is it illegal to research on the Genocide of the Assyrians. From AGOS 12/14/2007: The Assyrian sociologist Fuat Deniz, 40, died after being stabbed by an unknown assailant at Orebro University, in Sweden. He was researching about the persecution and killings of the Assyrians during World War I in the Ottoman Empire... Well Ali Bayramoglu is still alive - a Turk in Turkey acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. But for how long? Life is dangerous among Turkish Nationalists. Apocolocynthosis (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't picnic while around any ultra-nationalist group. I don't remember Armenians complaining while Turkish diplomats were being murdered by Armenian terrorists.--Doktor Gonzo 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. But we are on the Armenian Genocide's discussion page. Researchers on the Genocide are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. What is your comment on this sad fact? Apocolocynthosis (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Turkish diplomats have a lot to do with this genocide agenda. As for the 'state sponsored terrorism', I wouldn't call it that, but apperantly, according to the press, some subjects of the state (the police especially) are turning a blind eye to what's happening, the death threats, murders etc. which is of course frightening for someone who values justice for all. Still, I don't think it would be a different case if Armenians were in their shoes, they don't mind turning to brute force themselves.--Doktor Gonzo 20:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Article 301

A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.

A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.

In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.

Meowy 20:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC

I guess you forgot add the 4th line. Probably unintentionally. So let me complete it: 4) Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime. Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I intentionally missed it out for brevity. I guess we should be thankful that thought-crime isn't officially on the statute-books in Turkey. It is there unofficially: a Turkish author was prosecuted (unsuccessfully) under article 301 for words spoken by a fictional character in one of her books. And, btw, I do know that in Britain recently a woman was actually convicted of a terrorist offense just for creating a work of fiction. But that is off-topic, see my other comment below. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well next time when you're going to inform people about something, please tell the whole story rather than picking words that makes the content look different. That's how they got people sued for 301. (see my comment above) And please look at this. I agree that 301 is problematic, but the way it's used is more problematic than the article itself. Plus if you don't want any discussions here that doesn't help the article (As you suggested in the following section), please stop starting new ones. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? France has a same kind of law. Heard they'll change the "Turkishness" in the article to "Turkish nation".--Doktor Gonzo 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone in France being prosecuted for saying that the Armenian genocide happened! This discussion is about Turkish laws being used in relation to Turkey's state-level denial of the Armenian genocide, it is not a discussion about worldwide laws in general and their misuse. Meowy 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you a bit. [7]. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to return this talk page to its proper purpose!

Its purpose should be to improve Wikipedia's "Armenian Genocide" article. Its purpose is not to provide a forum for genocide deniers or for those who wish to argue against those deniers. But that currently seems to be its main purpose, with the result that it had been turned into a never-ending battleground against genocide denialists. I have just erased two recent sections of this talk page because they were off-topic in that they were not relevant to improving the article. It seems to me that we have lost sight of what the actual function of the article should be – its function should be to inform an uninformed reader about the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopaedic way. Let's get back to making editorial suggestions aimed at improving the actual article, and cease trying to win pointless victories over genocide denialists! Meowy 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has felt the need to comment on my above words. However, I have just erased two more sections on this talk page, both of which were added after my above comment. One was titled "Why Armenia do not open his historical archives", the other, "Demands by the Armenian parliment" - neither of their content had any relation to what talk page content should contain: discussion on and suggestions about the article's content. In an article's talk page that is on a non-controversial subject, or that has very little activity, such postings can be overlooked (and in some cases even be enjoyed). However, this talk page now runs to an immense 18 archives - most of which is unreadable and has very little directly to do with the subject of this "Armenian genocide" entry in wikipedia. I am going to continue to erase off-topic discussions and off-topic material under wikipedia's talk-page content guidelines. Meowy 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am re-adding the "demands by the armenian parliment" section. User:White Cat was actually suggesting something about article. If you erased it because of my comment, I'm sorry that we don't share the same kind of sense of humour. Plus, why would anyone comment about your words, it says on the top of the article that the talk page should be about the article anyways. It even warns us about trolls. It says that they're baaaad. and we shouldn't feed them. Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have erased it again. It is you who are behaving like a troll. This talk page is not a discussion forum - there are plenty of other locations on the internet to indulge in those pastimes. In what context do you imagine the erased section could be useful in improving the content of the article? There was no context, in my opinion, nor was any given or suggested by any of the contributors of that section. So it was off-topic. Not that a nationalistic rant in Hurriyet would ever be fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. (And the Armenian parliament has made no such demands, btw.) Meowy 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chill out dude! Nobody called you a troll. I just wanted to say that it's already stated on the top of the talk page that blatant trolling shouldn't be replied. Last time I re-added the part because User:White Cat, indeed, was suggesting something; ("This is the info on current news I think should be incorporated to this article. -- Cat chi? 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)") But such quarreling really wears me so I'm not going to bother readding it. Hope you kittens can get along. I just checked the news by the way, it's not that Armenian parliament had issued a decleration of demands or something, but the newspaper simply summed up the individual statements are by some members of the parliament (namely Armen Rustamyan, Kiro Manoyan and Ara Papyan) Kerem Özcan (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I removed it - the "information" was clearly never going to be suitable for inclusion in the entry, so why fill yet more lines of this talk page with a pointless discussion about it. You use of words did suggest to me you were calling me a troll, but I will accept that you actually were not. Meowy 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering who's going to tell WhiteCat that Turkish sources can not be neutral on any articles releted to Armenia. He has been told this by three different admins on the other article, but is yet to understand that. And I still consider his deletion of Armenian Genocide memorial images from commons as an insult and a personal attack. Perhaps he can AFD this article as well. VartanM (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, are Dadrian and Balakian, and several other references to Armenian authors used in this article neutral? Atabek (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He has used every trick in the book in the past to harm this article.User:Fadix/Evidence.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is more to it then the 2005 VartanM (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the most recenty deleted image, the reason given for its removal was clearly not valid. It seems that some editors have found a new tool to attack articles they don't like: removing images through the use of obscure aspects of copyright law - but in this case, fortunately, that particular law was not on their side. Meowy 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions, I hope constructive ones.

A lot of the article is very badly written. I think this is mostly because the article has been written as a result of lots of editors having little victories over other editors, but with everyone forgetting to have an overall look at what has been produced. After reading through the whole article I have the following comments to make.

The whole first section is an unwieldy read – there is nothing much factually wrong with it, but it is written in a messy way. However, the "Under the pretext of disloyalty, the Ottoman government charged that Armenians were siding with the Russian Empire and stipulated that the deportations were born out of the necessity to preserve national security" statement is so important it needs a source, plus an explanation about the context in which it was said.

"The general date given to the beginning of the genocide is 24 April 1915". The word "general" implies a non-specific date, yet a specific date is given! Probably the editor wanted to say "the date generally given". Something should be said of the fact that it is a symbolic date.

"The majority of the survivors and their descendants are what now comprise the bulk of the Armenian Diaspora" - I think this is a false statement. I think, currently the majority of the Armenian diaspora are emigrants from the Armenian Republic. Maybe it would be better to write that the majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the aftermath of the Armenian genocide.

All of the "Prelude" sections (Life under Ottoman rule; Reform implementation; Hamidian Massacres) are far to long, especially since they all have individual entries. Some extensive pruning is required.

The "The Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917" section. There is no place here for such irrelevant detail as the tactical details of the Battle of Sarikamish, all that is really required is a two-sentence summary. "Van Resistance, April 20" should be changed to something more encompassing, such as "Events at Van". "Rounding of Armenian notables, April 24" – should be "rounding-up" of course, but should, I suggest, be changed to "Arrest and deportation of Armenian notables". The information on the Dardanelles' campaign is mostly irrelevant details – a sentence or two summary is all that is required. "Legislation, May 29" - change it to "The Temporary Law of Deportation (The "Tehcir" law)" The whole of the next paragraph is very confusing and needs to be rewritten.

"Process and camps of deportation" – change it to "The deportation and extermination process". Considerably more detail is required here. Additions needed include the dates that Armenians were deported from such and such towns, eyewitness accounts, where there were immediate massacres of the deportees, and where the camps along the routes were located. This section should actually comprise the bulk of the whole article.

"Foreign corroboration and reaction" This section is way too long! I guess it has got to its current size as a result of arguments against genocide denialists played out on this talk page. However, the purpose of this article is not to be an argument against denialists, its purpose is to give a reader a concise, informative, encyclopaedic account of the Armenian genocide.

There needs to be a new sub-section called "The Aftermath". The "tribunals", "trials", and "assasinations" sections could all be placed in here. Another part of the "Aftermath" could include a mention of the continuing significance of the genocide in the lives of current Armenians, artistic responses to the event, etc.

"Influence of the Armenian Genocide on Adolf Hitler" – I can see no point in having this section. In what way did Adolf Hitler’s knowledge of the Armenian genocide influence his actions? And why should such actions, if they did exist, have any relevance to an article about the Armenian genocide? If they did exist, then they should be detailed in an entry for Hitler, or for WW2!

"ICTJ View" - I can see no point in having this small separate section. A brief mention elsewhere in the article would suffice.

"Academic views" – Serious questions need to be asked about the purpose of this section. Much of what is here would be better placed in the Denial of the Armenian genocide article. If the rest is to be kept, then the sub-section title should be changed to "The study of the Armenian genocide".

"The Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" - Another way-too-long section. Most of this should also be in the Denial of the Armenian genocide entry, and a brief summary should be here. Things that are missing from this section include an account of the immediate-post WW1 response by the Turkish Republic to the survivors of the genocide.
Meowy 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Many good suggestions (I particularly like your last suggestion - moving much of the - current and recent - Turkish Republic position into the "denial" article and adding info on the views of Turks/Turkish government in the period imediatly after the Genocide) - however I do not agree with all of your proposed deletes or reductions. Becuase of the great deal of Turkish States sponsored denial propoganda and obstrufication it is most important to include such views that are contained in the "Foreign coorboration" section. Likewise Hitler's comments - also disputed by Genocide deniers - are relevant to the history of the Armenian Genocide as well as to genocides in general - with particular relevance to (the often not fully accepted/remembered) Armenian Genocide again due to official Turkish Government and government sponsored denials. The point that Hitler makes - that the Genocide was undertaken, was completed succesfully, and yet the perpetrators went unpunished - even in losing the war - is a powerful message that reinforces the concept of "we much never forget" and that we must never allow the deniers to prevail - because clearly the successes of the Ottoman Turkish Genocide against the Armenians paved the way for the Holocaust of Jews and other undesireables in WWII. Likewise I find that the ICTJ ruling is highly relevant and necessary - including the history surrounding such a ruling - one that Turkish representatives of TARC pushed for and declared they would abide by - but when the ruling went totally against them they disbanded TARC and chose to forget about the whole thing. And while I agree that too much emphasis has perhaps been placed on background events/history and not enough on the actual undertaking of the Genocide itself - again the reason for the need fo such background (if even I agree that it is over emphasized) is that to many people the Armenian Genocide is unknown history - thus it requires contextialization. And in fact I have long argued for greater presentation of such as one cannot truly understand these events - particularly the "whys" and many find such barbarity and premeditation hard to accept - when they are unfamiliar with the relevant history of the Armenian (and Christion minority) experience (and persecution) in the later period of the Ottoman Empire - as well as related issues in regards to the crumbling Empire (including persecutions of former Turkish overlords and the refugee situation and the intelectual backlash among Turkic intellectuals of these regions and their influence on Ottoman Turkish attitudes), growing ethnic/national conciensce among all groups, the rise of the radical Young Turk revolutionary movement (and its transformation and eventual move toward predation upon the minorities) and relations with Armenian progressive parties, the Hamadian massacres and (social and economic) factors adding to the increasing resentment of Armenians and other Christians among the ruling Ottoman elite and by the Turkish "nation" in general...etc etc...So yeah - these factors are very important and could use much better explanation and presentation - along with - of course - greater details concerning the persecution of the Genocide throughout Anatolia. --THOTH (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the article isn't to counter "Turkish States sponsored denial propaganda" – its purpose should be to give as clear and as concise as possible account of the Armenian genocide. I think that most of the current failings in the article have come about because of that misconception.

Contextualisation can often be best attained through hyperlinks to the relevant related articles where those articles exist. In such cases all that is needed in this article is a brief mention of what the earlier events are, and why they are related. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it’s individual articles are not meant to be textbooks.

Regarding the comments allegedly made by Hitler. I would think that unless someone can indicate a source which says that Hitler embarked on such-and-such a policy largely or solely because of lessons he learned or opinions he held as a result of the Armenian genocide then mention of that alleged statement would appear to be off-topic here. But it could be mentioned in the denial of the Armenian genocide article because, as you say, material aimed at discrediting the alleged statement can be found in some of the works produced with the aim of denying the fact of the Armenian genocide. The fact that almost all of the perpetrators went unpunished, and that the Armenian genocide was "successful" can be told in the proposed Aftermath section. Meowy 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you really so ignorant of Hitler's legacy (and do you really so fail to understand the direct connection) to make such a vacuous statement? And you seem to be reading alot into my statement. Absolutley I believe the article should do the best possible job presenting the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopedic way and understand that this has some limitations. However, due to the fact that many are unfamiliar with the relevant facts surounding these events and have no context to place them into - unlike the Holocaust - an otherwise similar event (and the active denial certainly plays a part in promoting this ignorance) - this entails that greater situational and explanative detail is needed in the article then otherwise would be necessary for events that are more readily and popularly known. At least this is how I see it.--THOTH (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What you or I believe "Hitler's legacy" to be is of no relevance to this article. Unless you, or some other editor, can cite sources that say Hitler embarked on such-and-such a policy or action largely or solely because of lessons he learned or opinions he held as a result of the Armenian genocide, then I can't see any reason to include in the article something allegendly said by Hitler about the Armenian genocide. I disagree with your apparent assertion that articles on subjects that everyone knows about should be written differently from articles on subjects that few people know about. If people already know about a subject, they generally don't need to consult Wikipedia about that subject! Meowy 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Hitler - I seem to recall that the quote from his speech in 1939 invoking the (lack of) memory concerning the Armenian Genocide before ordering his units into Poland to ethnically cleanse it in the name of German Lebensraum figures quite prominantly on a wall of the Holocaust Museaum in Washington DC - perhaps they have misunderstood the quote eh? --THOTH (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Powers is a scholar who has achieved some renown for both her writings on comparative genocide as well as due to her legal battle with the prominent Holocaust denier David Irving. In her book A Problem for Hell: America and the Age of Genocide she explains the connections between Hitler, the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, Raphael Lemkin and the Trial of Soghomon Tehliran for the murder of Talaat which occurred in Berlin Germany in 1921 – a sensationalized event that received great publicity and press coverage occurring only a few short years after WWI bringing up questions of German complicity in additional war crimes and such…and she introduces the fact that both Hitler and Lemkin were obviously well aware of these events.

Raphael Lemkin is of course the inventor of the word genocide and the chief proponent of passing the International Genocide convention for the specific purpose of preventing such in the future by establishing genocide as a legal crime so that perpetrators of such – like the CUP/Ottoman Turks could not be assured of immunity and that those contemplating such – like Hitler – would have reason to think twice before undertaking such actions. Lemkin had to flee Poland subsequent to Hitler’s invasion and cleansing of such and thus had an innate understanding of what was at stake. In her book Power writes:

“Lemkin drafted a paper that drew attention to both Hitler’s ascent and to the Ottoman slaughter of the Armenians, a crime that most Europeans either had ignored or filed away as an “Eastern” phenomenon. If it happened once, the young lawyer urged, it would happen again. If it happened there, he argued, it could happen here. If the international community ever hoped to prevent mass slaughter of the kind the Armenians had suffered, he insisted, the world’s states would have to unite in a campaign to ban the practice. With that in mind, Lemkin had prepared a law that would prohibit the destruction of nations, races, and religious groups. … The attempt to wipe out national, ethnic, or religious groups like the Armenians would become an international crime that could be punished anywhere, like slavery and piracy. The threat of punishment, Lemkin argued, would yield a change in practice.”

She immediately follows this text by indicating that Lemkin wasn’t the only European who had learned from these events (the Armenian Genocide):

“…in August of 1939, Hitler met with his military chiefs and delivered a notorious tutorial on a central lesson of the recent past: Victors write the history books. He declared: “It was knowingly and lightheartedly that Genghis Khan sent thousands of women and children to their deaths. History sees in him only the founder of a state. . . . The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically. It is by this means that we shall obtain the vital living space (Lebensraum) that we need. Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?”

Thus we clearly here have at least one instance of a major recognized comparative genocide scholar acknowledging and making the specific point concerning Hitler’s Armenian Genocide statement – that his awareness of the event – and the lack of punishment for such (whose lack of punishment has also allowed the ability for its continued denial by the perpetrators) directly contributed to his decision making regarding the fate of the Jews and other undesirables of WWII. This is an incredible connection that needs to be acknowledged and highlighted and it is a significant fact surrounding the Armenian Genocide which absolutely must be presented here. I find it absolutely incredulous that anyone claiming to be aware of and understand these events (who is without some specific counter political agenda) would think differently about this issue.--THOTH (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On October 19, 2003 - Belinda Cooper - senior fellow at the World Policy Institute wrote: "The 20th century opened with an event that has been considered the template for the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews: the deportation and murder of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. Yet while the Holocaust conjures up a host of images in our minds, we have no similar familiarity with the Armenian murders (which most serious observers agree fit the definition of genocide) nor the even less-known massacres of Armenians in the 1890's and in 1909." And i am sure I can find more scholars and others who hold this view. I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the Armenian Genocide was a direct template for the Holocaust in the mind of Hitler and his close associates - many of whom can be shown to have had direct ties to German involvement in the Ottoman Empire during WWII. And I'm sure you are familiar with some of the other documented quotes of Hitler's regarding the Ottoman Turkish sucessful anihilation of the Armenians and his perceptive and relevant views(to future Holcaust thinking)....--THOTH (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You still have not given any compelling reason to include that so-called "Hitler statement". It has been argued that the statement itself is a complete invention, and what is certain is that no original document exists recording those words. The fact that Lemkin used the example of the Armenian genocide towards his coining of the term "genocide" and the example the Armenian genocide gave towards subsequent genocides could be included in a separate subsection of the Aftermath section. There is no need to tarnish those facts with the insertion of a quote that is almost certainly a fake and that has been used in the crudest and most childish type of PR propaganda. Meowy 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made the section and subsection heading changes I suggested in the above, and have abridged the sentences that mentioned the Sarikamish and Gallipoli campaigns. Meowy 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A now for something completely different

My Suggestion:

Armenian Events in Ottoman 1915-1918. Genocide word is an political allagetion of one side. see Genocide article. it is on based UN rules. it is an allegation about a government. it s about Ottoman government in this article. but there arent any document about killing command. many people died different reasons. see the Turkey allegations an docs. numbers of die about 400.000 and 500.000 people during the WWI. and reason of most of die is illness. accepted one is the attacking by highwayman against the armenians. the numbers about this issue are about max 20.000. alsa there are attacks against the Ottoman citizens by Armenian highwayman. it is about the 500.000. names are listed in docs name by name. but there is no governmental and esc. commands about attack or killing. becaouse of these different allagations we must do rules that is under below article. and this article about the rules of WP:EXTREMIST.--Qwl (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:EXTREMIST:

Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.

AND please stop the erase my allegations. nobody can not hide the true. nobody try to seem poor Armenians or Ottoman/others are killers. see rule that below --Qwl (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence is amusing. VartanM (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

may other suggestion:

1915-1918 Civil War in Ottoman --Qwl (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't mean to be rude, but you're wasting you're time here. You are not gonna be able to delete or rename this article. I'm sure there are a lot of Turkish articles that could use some expending. VartanM (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I can not change the name of article? What s your reason according to Principles, Policies and guidelines in Wikipedia? i can change it according to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change . you can revert but you must show a reason according to the rules?.

and now. Why i can not change? what s your reason about my two suggestions? i want to discuss your reasons about my two suggestions.--Qwl (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, wikipedia has a policy against weasel words. And calling the extermination of an ethnic group "Armenian Events in Ottoman 1915-1918" would definitely be weaseling out of calling it what it is. Also, you cannot change the name without establishing a consensus that the article name should be changed.The Myotis (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

this is poin of a view. also we have Armenian word in this article. please see here [8] to see the consensus way. i can change it.

• here is the new suggestions..

1. 1915-1918 Civil War in Ottoman

2. Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918

3. Muslims and Armenians Citizens Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918

4. Muslims and Armenians Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918

5.Muslim-Armenian Conflicts in Ottoman 1915-1918

I wrote muslims. because Ottoman divides their citizens as muslims, armenians, greek, jewish, protestan...

--Qwl (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God, Qwl, give it a rest. Your suggestions are akin to changing the name of the Holocause to "German-Jewish Conflicts in Europe 1933-1945" or "Conflicts in Nazi Germany 1933-1945". It is what it is. The general consensus of people around the world (except Turkey) is that the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War was genocide, by very definition. Giving it any other name is simply an attempt to whitewash history and deny the truth and the extent of what really happened. The Germans and the German government have come to terms with the Holocaust- why can't the Turks and their government finally do the same with regard to the Armenian Genocide? The entire world agrees that what took place was a genocide, and by constantly denying this fact the Turkish government does nothing but lose credibility with the rest of the world and try to fool itself. But then ignorance is bliss, isn't it?RockStarSheister (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Demands by the Armenian parliament

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion was moved to Talk:Armenian-Turkish relations#Demands by the Armenian parliament -- Cat ^chi? 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Qwl - I have no axe to grind, little knowledge of this subject and no ideological slant either way. However your arguments have not convinced me of your position in the least. It is important for any people to admit past misconduct and honestly examine their own history to ensure that we as a species only improve. Your eds are (rather crude) propaganda with the transparent intention of advancing a political agenda by introducing other information which is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Were Muslims in the regions killed by Armenians in a tit-for-tat cycle of violence starting in the mid 19th century and culminating in the genocide of the Armenian population by the Turkish government in 1915 ? No idea - but I respect your right to make this case and use Wiki to present logical, balanced, well written and well referenced information in a page on that topic. Any person of good intentions should support your right to do this.

But this is a separate issue and should be in a separate page. At best, it may be fair to mention that the 1915 events took place in the context of cyclic communal violence and insert a link to a separate Wiki on Armenian attacks on muslims.

You are going to have to work hard though, as the whole point of genocide is that it is a state sponsored or organised activity, not a riot in which a lot of people got killed.

Renaming strategic bits of the Armenian Genocide page to try to present the mass murder of civilians as anything other than what it was is ridiculous. Frankly, I can think of nothing more truly disrespectful to the Turkish people than dishonest refusal to examine past behaviour as honestly and objectively as possible. Qwl, with respect, you are not even trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.161.79 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

one of the rules against this article

POV_forks it says:

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.

may help your ideas.--Qwl (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. Meowy 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on creating a POV fork? Because this is clearly the main article. The Myotis (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

clear? its in your opinion. we must talk about it. i think it s not clear.--Qwl (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent events

Recently, members of the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide but was postponed due to political pressure (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/washington/26cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Should this be included as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.245.171 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Good suggestion. --THOTH (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Things that have not happened are not notable. The process that involved the thing not happening would be best placed in Denial of the Armenian genocide Meowy 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See United States resolution on Armenian genocide, its defiantly notable to have its own article. VartanM (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has a place in that article. But I don't think it has in this one until it has resolved itself and come to a conclusion. Meowy 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First genocide of 20th century?

The UN has acknowledged the genocide of the Herero in German South West Africa in 1904 as the first genocide of the 20th century. The letter from the "International Association of Genocide Scholars", cited as a reference here for the point that the Armenian genocide was the first, actually does not explicitly claim this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.33.114 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide article you can refer to it as the first civil war of the 20th century.--THOTH (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should answer the point (does the source explicitly support the claim). Don't throw insults.

Actually, I don't see any reason in having the claim in the article. It's probably a matter of POV opinion whether the claim is correct ot not, but regardless of that, why have the claim in an article about the Armenian genocide? One could make an argument for it if it were said in the context of something like the "Armenian genocide was the first genocide to make full use of 20th century technology". As it is now, it's just a distraction. I'd get rid of it. Meowy 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, you can't call it a genocide making full use of 20th Century technology because just 30 years after this suppossed 'Genocide', the nuclear bomb was invented, which wasn't used. And a whole host of the weapons of the previous century wasn't invented or used. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" letter. Not only does it not explicitly make the "first genocide of the 20th century" claim, at no point does the letter even mention anything close to the claim! For that reason I've now removed the reference. Meowy 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the words "widely acknowledged" cannot seriously be used in the context of having only a single source saying that it was the "first genocide of the twentieth century, I think the whole sentence should now be removed. If the anonymous editor who started this discussion could supply a reference for that UN statement, then I think that would make the case for its removal. Meowy 16:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And here is an article that claims "the Herero were the first ethnic group to be subjected to genocide in the twentieth century": [[9]] Meowy 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given these conflicting "first genocide" claims, I will remove it fron the introduction section unless there are arguments to retain it. Meowy 01:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No arguments against removing it - so I've now removed it. Meowy 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The world does not revolve around the UN, there is countless references stating that the Armenian Genocide is the first genocide of the twentieth century, and reliable ones. Just because the UN states it has acknowledged the Herero in German South West Africa in 1904 as the first genocide of the 20th century does not mean it gets removed. Also when it says 'widely' I think we understand that many references state that the Armenian Genocide is considered to be the first genocide of the twentieth century. --Namsos (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article can't make the "widely recognised" part of the claim unless numerous sources say it. The claim, when I removed it, had only one source for the claim, and that source was a general work. And I don't think the article can make the "first genocide" claim without some qualification being added because, as I have indicated, others have made a similar claim for a different event. That is why I felt it would be better for the claim to be removed completely - it is a distraction and added nothing to the quality of the article. BTW, I'm not saying that what happened to Herero tribes amounted to genocide, I'm merely saying that others have made that claim. Meowy 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Im reverting the newly added part on "Turkish authorities gave up fighting against 25 countries during World War I,etc" as a possible vandalism. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I also made some technical corrections and added a photo from WikiCommons for the lead which hadnt any. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all the Sources are biased

Almost all stated sources are biased. The names of all the authors ends with -ian, which makes them armenian. Kurdish sociologist (not historian) Taner Akcam should also be ignored in a encyclopedia-article, because his anti-turkish mentality is documented. The whole article is biased, for example it says that jews were persecuted in the Ottoman Empire, in fact it has always been safer to be a jew in the ottoman empire than in europe. Independat of whether these events are a genocide or not, the article is clearly anti-turkish. I know that you will call me a holocaust-denier, fascist, murder, terrorist etc, but as a person of turkish descent its my right to call atention to things, which in my (genocidal and bloodthirsty turkish) mind are biased to my proud countries disadvantage. I know the armenian diaspora will smash my request, but i want to say that being reasonable and good-minded will always lead you to victory - thats why the turkish state rises from Ararat to Trace, from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. With obstinacy, you wont get anywhere, as history proves. XmuratX (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets see, you called Akcam a Kurd, which could either be because you are wildly misinformed or because you are deliberately trying to slander Akcam by categorizing him as belonging to a rival ethnic group. Unless you have a good source to prove otherwise, Ackam is a Turk and will always be one. Next, Jews are irrelevant to this discussion and this article. They are a different ethnic group and tolerance of one group does not negate extermination of another. Third, you go on a little semi-nationalistic rant about the greatness of the Turkish people, which does little to convince us that your request has any merit. In all honesty, your post suggests you contain quite a bit of bias yourself. As always with wikipedia, you must find sources to prove your point - you cannot just stick your finger in the air and shout 'biased' like a medieval witch-hunter without something to back it up. Find a number of NPOV sources that state or otherwise directly indicate the sources used in this article are biased or other wise represent anything but he truth, and the various editors of this article may reconsider. Would you care to try again? The Myotis (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank your for analysing my mind. I dare to say that you are prejudiced against every single turk, thinking that we are all biased. This is not true. Before starting, i would like to say that kurds and turks are NOT rivals, it may be true that many armenians want us to fight each other, in order to realize a turkish-kurdish civil war, which is aimed by many of your countrymen, but turks and kurds are still brothers.

But lets go. I dont think that Tamer Akcam is a neutral source, not because of his kurdish descent, but because he was a leading member of the anti-turkish and marxist-leninist group called "Devrimci Yol" (revolutionary path). In this Inteview done by the turkish left wing journalist can dandür, akcam states how he became a leader member of this group, which had the aim to split turkey. Many people consider Dev-Yol as a terrorist organization, but i think that this is not enough for you. So lets see what Akcam says about the PKK, a leninist group recognized as terrorist by USA, EU and UN, in this Interview:
" Abdullah Öcalan’la ilişkiniz ne zaman başladı?
Apo’yla Ankara’dan tanışırdım. 1973 - 75’te Ankara gençliğinin örgütlenmesinde beraber çalışmış, aynı dernekte yöneticilik yapmıştık. THKP - C sempatizanıydık ve Apo bize "Mahir Çayan’ın yazdıkları en iyi Kürdistan’da uygulanır, bırakın büyük şehirleri, gelin Kürdistan’a gidelim. Silahlı mücadeleyi orada örgütleyelim" derdi."
Ill try to translate it (as you see my english is not perfect)
Q: When did your friendship with Abdullah Öcalan start?
A: I first met him in Ankara. From 1973 - 1975 we worked together 'organizing our groups, we had the same ideas. We symphatized with the THKP - C', he said that the ideas of Mahar Cayan are very easy to realize in our homeland Kurdistan, lets leave the big cities and go to there. We can also form our armed struggle there.

(intervening edit)He says neither "homeland kurdistan" nor "our armed struggle". It's simply translated as "kurdistan" and "the armed struggle". As a native speaker of turkish (so I assumed) you should know that as well. It's such a hypocracy that you accuse people of being biased, while you're doing the bias yourself. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Akcam says that he and Apdullah Öcalan - the biggest Enemy of the turkish State - were friends, worked together and had shared the same ideals. Another very important point is that he said that he symphatizes with THKP - C, a marxist terrorist group, which also tried to split up turkey. According to the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, this group murdered 3 civilians (not as good as your asala, but still terrorist). He also says that Kurdistan is his homeland, which makes him pretty kurdish (in my biased turkish opinion, i dont know how you will reintepret this.) So according to this interview your so called neutral source is a good friend of a terrorist-leader, symphatizes with terrorist organisations and has ideas of splitting turkey. This makes him pretty anti-turkish i think.
Later in the same Interview he also says "PKK ile cuntaya karşı ortak bir cephe yaratmaya ve diğer örgütleri de buna dahil etmeye karar verdik." (english: together with the PKK we wanted to form an army consisting of every other (seperatist) group, which should fight against the "junta") In this sentence we learn that Akcam wanted to form a terrorist army which should fight the turkish army and split up turkey. This agains sound very anti-turkish and biased to me. In the same Interview he says that he was jailed 5 times in Turkey motiveless, regardless of whether the turkish state did right or wrong by doing so, i doubt that anyone can be neutral to a states which jailed him 5 times, according to him motiveless. He is biased. You will probably say that the interview, done by one of the most reliable journalists of turkey some decades ago is "fake and paid propaganda" (like everything else from turkey). In this case, i will post you some other sources sources. For example, the left-wing german daily newspaper TAZ says in this article that Mr Akcam was one of the leaders of the Dev-Yol, which later built up THKP-C, an anti-turkish terrorist group.
Now i wasted some minutes of my live by trying to convince you that Mr Akcam is anti-turkish and biased, although i know that you will never change anything at all. I think that the Wikipedia Armenian Genocide article is something holy for the armenians, something they will never want to lose - just like the mount ararat.
I never judged about whether these events should be considered as a genocide or not, but if we want to follow the wikipedia guidelines, text passages quoting taner akcam should be removed.
By the way, you say that "Jews are irrelevant to this discussion and this article". If this is true, why does the Article refer to the situation of Jews in the Ottoman Empire at least 5 times? We all know that jews in the ottoman empire had always lived better lives with far more rights than anywhere else in this world, especially europe. But this article still says that they were persecuted. I criticized this point, and took it as an example of how anti-turkish this article - especially the party created with akcams quotes, is.XmuratX (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Our ASALA?

I would suggest you reacquaint yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies before making such defamatory remarks. I would then recommend that you reacquaint yourself with the topic instead of jumping to the conclusion that because the authors are biased, their credibility is somehow discredited. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, If you don't give me any any factual evidence, the only think left to analyze is the opinions of the poster. I prefer not to do this, however, as it distracts from actual discussion. First of, Taner Akcam is neither a terrorist nor a Kurd (I don't understand why you are so insistent on that one) and I sincerely doubt he is just a 'self-hating' Turk, as there is no acceptable evidence of such. Also, I do not think that most Turks hate Armenians, and I know for a fact some do not. I doubt even you hate them, after all, you put a photo of an ancient Armenian monastery on your profile. Jews only relate to the Calamity as an example on another Ottoman minority, one large enough to be considered dangerous by the majority, and I sincerely doubt had more rights in the Ottoman Empire than anywhere else in the world. As for you 'evidence' that Akcam is both a terrorist and a Kurd, I do have some good reasons to believe you may be misinterpreting your facts. The Myotis (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all stated sources are biased. The names of all the authors ends with -ian, which makes them armenian. — And most sources on the Holocaust are Jewish, what are you trying to say? If you think this article is biased because there are many Armenian authors on it, then you should nullify the Holocaust article using the same logic since there are many Jewish historians who state that 6 million Jews died during WWII. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here in Germany we have a word called "Auschwitzkeule". It means as much as using nazi-comparisons when you are in lack of arguments. Instead of comparing X with Y, we should discuss factual. I dont say that armenian historians should be excluded in this discussion, this topic is the most importantevent in their history, its probably impossible to write about these events without any armenian sources. BUT when i look at the sources linked in the article, i see Balakian, Dadrian, Terzian, Abrahamian, Sarkisian, Matossian, Danielian, but i dont see Halacoglu, i dont see any Bernard Lewis and no Norman Stone and no McCarthy, no Shaw. They are indeed important and reliable acadamics, and most of them are not turks. Where they are? I know that your excuse will be "they are all paid by the turkish government" which is definitly not true. Isnt it possible not to adopt your opinion, without being paid by the turkish government? Recognizing these Massacres as Genocide is indeed - like it or not - NOT self-evident. Many important Governments (Israel, Great Britain etc) also refuse to call these events "genocide", so there is an international dispute about, you cant deny this. In a controversial issue like this one it is important to use 1) non-biased sources 2) sources of both sides. The Holocaust is not controversial issue, despite some of your countrymen tend to deny it, e.g. Armen Avetisian or the succesful author Romen Yepiskoposyan.

Now to Taner Akcam. He is the most quoted Person in this Article, the whole story told by the armenian-american community is based on his works. In fact, he is totally anti-turkish. I doubt that he is not a kurd, but this does not matter, Abdullah Öcalan is also half turkish, which does not make him a reliable source. Its a fact that Taner Akcam was a leading member of Dev-Yol, a marxist group sponsored by sowjets which had the goal of splitting the capitalist republic of Turkey. This would make him pretty anti-turkish. Do you deny the fact that he was a member or do you deny the fact that this group was an enemy of the turkish state? Please be concrete and precise with your answers. XmuratX (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie (murat) - but character assasination is just another tactic of genocide deniers (like you) and is not sufficient for consideration in an article such as this. Besides we have already thouroughly discussed these issues you raise (regarding not only Akcam - but minority/unsupported/discredited (denialist) viewpoints such as those of Halacoglu and Lewis). Likewise your attempt to discredit the very valid comparision between this article and the Holocaust article is also just an ad homonim like cheap shot and nothing more. The comparison made concerning Armenian scholars and the Armenian Genocide and Jewish scholars and the Holocaust is completely valid...as is what I am going to say next. Until we see the likes of David Irving - a far more respected scholar (known for relevant research) of the particular period of history and of the subject matter itself (regarding WWII and the Holocaust) - much more so then any you claim to be recognized experts on this particular period of history and regarding the subject of the Armenian Genocide - until a David Irving is included as representing a legitimate perspective on the Holocaust - there is no place for inclusion of the extreme biased and beholden (supposed) experts on the Armenian Genocide (not) that you put forth for the Armenian Genocide article - at least not other then mentioning them as deniers and mentioning of any relevant history - such as "the Lewis Affair" or such. Again they represent an extreme minority view that is genreally not only inconsitant with the prevelant scholarly understanding of this issue but is in extreme opposition to it...and of course there is no question as to why they hold the views that they do - and it bears little connection to anything actually factual or truly historical from a researched academic perspective.--THOTH (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the above discussion is off-topic. This article is about the Armenian genocide, it is not about the denial of the Armenian genocide. Topics like the methodology of discrediting sources and authors which disagree with the official Turkish position are best covered in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Meowy 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I may have made myself guilty of a vague Godwin's law by pointing to the Holocaust vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide. But, then again, bringing up the Armenian genocide historians and accusing them of bias simply because they are Armenians, is ad hominem. Now look, chances are, that the Armenian (and Jewish) historians could be bullshitting about their respective genocides due to their ethnic background. But if that's the case, you'll have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are indeed, manipulating evidence. If you are capable of proving it, then you have a case, if not, then don't waste our time on this. Topics like the methodology of discrediting sources and authors which disagree with the official Turkish position are best covered in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. — Couldn't have said it better myself. End of discussion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Meowy - if you read what I wrote that is exactly my point - there is no place for ad hominem attack against respected/recognized scholars in this article and inclusion of obviously non-pertinant ones who have little of actual substance to add and are clearly only pushing a political agenda. I specifically point out that this attempt to attack the article is just genocide denial in action and should not be seriously entertained. And I am glad you agree with me on this. And Murat - Tanar Ackam is a recognized scholar on this issue whose views are supported by intensive research and discover regarding direct sources of information - something non of your offered up stooges can claim. Get real.--THOTH (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, somewhere amongst your words, you made (or thought you made) the same point, but if you did it was hidden behind your prolixity. I made my point concisely, in two sentences. Meowy 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You try to avoid the question i asked. I never wanted you to add scholars like Halacoglu, Lewis or Stone. For you this article is as holy as mount ararat, for me its just leisure-activity. But you go off-topic by accusing me of being a systematic genocide-denier and by saying that my request is one tactic of a bigger plan. This is off-topic, not my request. Stop analysing my mind, instead answer my question. I never said that i deny a genocide. BUT: I gave you reliable sources, which prooves that Taner Akcam, person most quoted in this artice,

1. was part of the marxist-leninist group called Dev-Yol, whose aim was to split the turkish republic
2. was a good friend of the enemy #1 of turkey, apdullah öcalan, who formed the terrorist group PKK, killing more than 30.000 people in turkey. the PKK is recognized as a terrorist organisation by EU an USA. As stated in my source, Akcam shared the same ideals like öcalan, and even thought about forming armed forces with Öcalan, in order to fight the turkish state
3. symphatises with the terrororganisation THKP-C, a group which was created by members of the Dev-Yol, where Akcam was a leading member

Regarding all those fact, i'am pretty sure that Taner Akcam, who his of kurdish descent, is not a reliable source at events regarding turkey, because this all prooves his anti-turkish stance. Quoting Akcam is just Like quoting Öcalan. But you do not accept that he is anti-turkish and prejudiced against turkey. So i asked you: Do you deny the fact that he was member of a terrororganisation, or do you think that being part of a organization which tries to split a country does not mean that a leading member of it has to be enemy of the state, and its not necessarily a proof for an anti-state mentality - thats my question, i do not deny any genocide that occured, i condemn the killings occured in the ottoman empire. But describing bad things even worse than they actually were is not acceptable for me. Someone who murdered 20 persons should not be convicted for murdering and torturing 30 people, this is just wrong. I dont like Holocaust-Comparisons, but lets imagine this scenario: An anti-german former member of the RAF leaves germany for america, there he writes books in which he says that not 6 million jews were murdered, but 20 million were murdered and tortured even harder than it actually happened. Will this person ever be considered as an reliable source in wikipedia? definitly not. By the way, as i forecasted you accuse me of being a holocaust denier. You ignore that Irving doesnt even has an university degree, while both bernard lewis and norman stone served for the US/UK governments, stone even as foreign policy advisor of margerethe thatcher. As a german citizen, i feel responsibility for the holocaust, and for me questioning the uniqeness of the holocaust is an insult. I know that you, as armenians, have another point of view and another mentality regarding this subject, so i dont want to discuss about. Just dont go off-topic and answer the question. XmuratX (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All users are suggested to not feed trolls for fear of being trapped into an endless, illogical, and circular argument.

Jeez, just buzz off already. Don't you realize that nobody here takes you seriously with your facetious comments about not being a "genocide denier"? This definitely isn't a genuine attempt to improve the article but just another rant. This isn't a forum for you to lecture us, much less a place to make defamtory and false statements about other people. Yes, we categorically reject the idiotic claim that Akcam was a terrorist.

Perhaps if Turkey's education system was more honest and not in such a rotten state, we'd have less people like you coming here whining that about "bias", falsities, and the evil, ominpotent Armenian Diaspora. Learn about Wikipedia's policies, and then return back here; otherwise, stop spamming the talk page with your personal opinions. Everyone else, let's stop feeding the troll.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct you, ive never been at a turkish school, so you should bash the german education system inwhich iam doing very well. By the way, the german system is also doing very well, at least better than the american one, according to the last Pisa-study

But i think you are right. Label me as a troll. Akcam probably made fun about symphatizing with the THKP-C, just an zynical, ironical comment of him, which we should ignore. What i think is also ironical is that now Wikipedians label me as trolls, after making so many contributions at the de.wiki.x.io. Forget about, i never meant to touch your holy article, so stop feeding me. History will proove who is wrong and who is right, and until things are not cleard, jerewan will stay a hungry suburb while baku is developing into an metropole. Now i will stay away from your topics, as you never learnd how to ha

ndle criticism. Au revoir tout le monde, it was a pleasure to talk to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XmuratX (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an unexplained adding by Saqibsohail as it seems to be a misinterpretation. Anyways pls at first discuss it here!Andranikpasha (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow and I mean Wow. After all the explanation, xMurat did on Akçam s reliability as a source, you still deny him. Forget everything else in the article, just answer his questions if you can Marshall. Its pretty clear that this is biased and no matter what the sources will ever be changed. This is pure propoganda on wikipedia... No reason to discuss anything here since noone here is good enough or has valid reasons. If they do, then they become lecturers. I dare to think any change would ever be made against the genocide claim. I do not know what the purpose here is. This is not a discussion but pure propaganda.. .--ProudTurk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.216.154 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed POV edit

(removed most of discussion as off-topic, per WP:TALK --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Here is a source from International Association of Genocide Scholars who represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. And they say:

"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.[10]"

I hope this settles it. VartanM (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But it won't settle it. Come next month, or sooner, the whole process will be started again by another editor who does not know (or does not care) what this talk page should be for for. All discussion on this talk page should be about inproving the article, it should not be a discussion-forum for denying the Armenian genocide or arguing against deniers. Meowy 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Any denier who comes on these talk pages and proposes deleting major portions of the article - claiming that they are not factual - but are part of an Armenian only position - or any denier who comes here and demands that Turkish Government propoganda and other non-factual biased propoganda type material be included in the article will certainly get an argument. If not then they might feel free to edit the page inappropriatly. If these spurious positions are not opposed then these editors will feel free to make changes based on the fact that they have presented arguments here and none countered them. Its a sad but unfortunate reality that we have to bother and take the effort to do such - but if they keep comming here and commenting or changing then they need to be opposed.--THOTH (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that can be done about this. First, don't feed the trolls. Anyone who comes here denying the Armenian Genocide is at best sadly misinformed, but is more likely a crank. Unless they make posts that are directly related to improving the article, their posts can be removed from the talk page. You might also want to consider creating a FAQ, along the lines of Talk:Global warming/FAQ or Talk:Evolution/FAQ, so that if people continually bring up the same topics of discussion, you can simply say "this question has been answered, see the FAQ". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for removing anything that is on topic - that is part of the disucssion of the subject of the article -as this is a talk page and not everyone is well informed. Otherwise I agree with your points.--THOTH (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Think FAQ is a great idea, I would also love to see some kind of page called Proven Facts that are not debatable - so if anybody raises question - he can be directed to hat page. F.e. FACT #1: Massacres of Armenians is recognized as genocide by the majority of historians in the world. Steelmate (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

we have such a page. It's called WP:TRUTH. You cannot "debate" any "facts" on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. All you can debate are notable sources. Any debate can be reflected on Wikipedia, as long as it is shown that the debate is being led by notable, i.e. respectable and/or influential, authors or publications. As it happens, we do have a dedicated article to denials of the Armenian genocide, it is called Denial of the Armenian genocide. On this page, we discuss the fact that the Armenian genocide is being denied (while of course also pointing out that this is in conflict with the mainstream of international historiography). dab (𒁳) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can debate facts! We can debate which are valid for inclusion in an article and which are not. We can also debate which so-called "facts" are actually nothing of the sort. And a notable source is not the same as a reliable source. Meowy 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets do a compromise.

To date, twenty-one countries have formally recognized it as genocide, six countries officially refused to recognize the killings as genocide. Most Western scholars and historians accept this view. However, there are some western historians who refuse to call this event a genocide, and label it as a massacre.

Is this ok, or do you deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XmuratX (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The above is not acceptable. "Officially refused to recognize the killings as genocide" with a link to Denial of the Armenian Genocide is both POV and weasel-worded. Which six countries? Refusing to publically recognise something is not the same as denying it didn't happen. I would prefer that this whole "recognition" part of the introduction section is removed. It is off-topic there and actually should be included far later in the article, in the recognition section. Meowy 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Recognition is not the same as denial, f.e. US congress doesn't deny (moste of them acknowledge it, look at the sponsors of the bill) that genocide happened but doesn't recognize it in official statement (is afraid of threats from Turkey basically). Steelmate (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That illogical. Whether you add both, the countries which recognized and those which refused, or you remove all of them. only because of your majority and your better english skills, you cant ignore the wikipedia rules. if you add that netherlands officially recognize it, you have to mention that israel does officially NOT recognize it, if you add that france recognizes it, you have to add that UK officially refused to do so. if not, thats a double standart. XmuratX (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. Basically we need to specify what was the reason of not recognition, is it denial (like Turks & Azeris) or is it political like every other country, including US. You cannot say US denies the gneocide as 42 states actually officially acknowledged it but anyway US country didn't acknowledge it ...yet. Steelmate (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As i said, i did not call on adding all the countries which did not recognize the armenian genocide - that would be around 180. what i meant is that 6 countries were confronted with the genocide, btu officially refused to recognize it, for example israel, which refused to recognize any genocide, or the united kingkom, whose prime minister anounced at his website that his government does not categorise those events as a genocide, or bulgaria, whose parliament voted not to recognize it, althoug a resolution was already written. we cant know whether these government deny the genocide or they refused to recognize the genocide for political reasons - but its not our job to do this, as no one can read somebodies mind (and should not do in wikipedia), we can only work with the facts we have. and its indeed a fact that 6 governments refuse to recognize, while 21 recognized it. the armenian foreign minister said that france has only recognized the armenian genocide for political reasons (to have another reasong to stop turkey eu-entry), shoudl france now be removed fromt the page? definitly not. yours sincerely, XmuratX (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

180 cannot be included as they havn't stated their position officially. Regarding France please bring facts saying that, regarding US there plenty of facts, no mind reading is needed. When all congress was ready and then Turkey stated threatening and then congress decides to postpone voting and Bush says don't do it as it will alienate our ally Turkey - these all are political reasons. By the way France politically lost by recognizing genocide, as Turkey banned purchase of French military, the voting from France was against political interests. And also if France doesn't want to see Turkey in EU all it needs to do is vote "NO", as simply as that. Steelmate (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You dont get my point. It was neither my aim to start a discussien of what is political and what is historical, nor it was my whish to count USA as a denier or to remove france from the list of recognizing countries. The USA officially neither recognized, nor refused to recognize the genocide, so it is one of the 180 countries not involved. My point was that there are 6 countries which officially refused to recognize the genocide, although they were confronted with it, this means they have choosen not to recognize it - it does not matter what the reasons for their refusal were. my very coherent point is that we should list whether both, countries officially recognized and countries officially refused to do so, or none. they may have different reasons for it, for example israel may not want to recognize any genocide (regarding their own tragedic history), UK may want to have a very liberal POV, denmark may want turkey to join the EU and Bulgaria may not want to risk its economical connection to turkey (on which they depend) - but all these reasons are speculations, are not sure enough to add them in an encyclopedia, we are supposed to deal with facts, which means that we should not conceal facts like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XmuratX (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I got your point but here is another one: 4 countries choose not to recognize it (doesn't mean they deny it, as if they denied it they would make a statement, we such a nation - deny the genocide), vs 2 countries - deny it, make it officially forbidden to recognize by anyone. Those are two different issues and different motivations behind them. Steelmate (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Political recognition or non-recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with historical reality - its an entirely different thing. End of story.--THOTH (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ergo you would agree that we should remove the sentence about what countries recognized the genocide? Than ill do it right now. If you want the sentence to stay, it is just fair to add both, countries which recognized and countries which refused to recognize. XmuratX (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, discuss it on the appropriate page Recognition of the Armenian Genocide, not here. Steelmate (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the deletion made by XmuratX. No where, does anyone say to delete the recognition of the Genocide. Kansas Bear (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are wrong. In an earlier posting in this section I wrote "I would prefer that this whole "recognition" part of the introduction section is removed. It is off-topic there and actually should be included far later in the article, in the recognition section". XmuratX removed more than just that of course, and I think a mention of Turkey's denial of the genocide should remain in the introduction section Meowy 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

XmuratX stop disrupting the page. The recognition should be here, and it should go more into detail on the separate page.--Namsos (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

POV_forks it says:

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.

--Qwl (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV fork would be an article titled "1915 event". Qwl, there are no wikirules that you're gonna be able to use to delete this article, stop wasting communities time and find an article you think you can improve. Best regards. VartanM (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

can anybody explain to me that?

wikipedia is under USA laws. and i think this "1915 events" are not accepted as genocide in USA yet. So why the hell there is writing genocide here and why everyone is accepting it as genocide and why most of guys behaving to somebodies which against to genocide as it is genocide?? isnt it against to NPOV rules????88.228.133.224 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, laws don't work like that. In the US, you're completely free to call a genocide a genocide, with or withour government sanctioning. My cat is named "Nixon", even though that's not specifically recognised by any government. We call it a genocide because that's what anyone with the vaguest clue about what happened calls it. WilyD

18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia headquarters are located in Florida, which officially recognizes Armenian genocide as a genocide. VartanM (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As well as 39 other states in US that recognize Armenian Genocide. Read more here : Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Steelmate (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way US doesn't recognize and doesn't deny the genocide. It is different from position of Turkey which denies it. Steelmate (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also one thing: "formally recognized" in the lead is not correct per jurisprudence. No any document is named "Formal recognition", and they are rather official (released by official organs, parliaments), but not formal, especially some of these countries allow legal procedures for the cases of genocide denial: this noone can call "formal". Andranikpasha (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really interesting that, Turks (who supposedly killed such many armenians) supported Jews, saved them from Spanish Emperor's torture during the Ottoman Empire and opened it's doors to many of them during Hitler's Germany. Have you ever thought of a reason, why Jews were such nicely trated? Ottoman Empire included many different nations such as jews, greek, bulgarians, albanians, macedonians, arabs, armenians, romanians and many more.. Why was it the armenian, but not other?

Today.. It's general acception that armenians have really strong lobby in US, therefore they pressure strongly to show it to world as it really happened, till a certain level, they succeed.

Probably due to plenty of pre-judices against Turkey, it's not only US but also many other European and even some Latin American countries recognize this incident subjectively. Effort such as establishing a common committe from both sides to research the background is never accepted by Armenian side. All sources are always unofficial, such as diaries, newspapers in US, photos.. There are many conflicts on the figures that they claim, some say 1 million, some say 2,4 million people were killed. It's not even accepted to discuss it, which makes it worse.

Armenian side, unfortunately is afraid of -seeing- realities (good or bad, but reality is there and it's not always what one side sees). But can someone explain me, why are you guys from armenia are so problematic to do further research and common study on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabalgasun (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

... influence on Hitler ...

please, look on this scholarly piece [[11]] Malteser.Falke (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On what here´s called "Armenian Quote" (Hitlers Second Secret Speech, Aug. 22, 1939). In the end of 2007, a scholar of comparative genocidal research, Dr Richard Albrecht, cut the Gordian Knot when not only verifying that as famous as notorious second Secret Speech Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler gave to the Supreme Commanders of the Deutsche Wehrmacht (Aug. 22, 1939, at Obersalzberg) but also at first published, in German, the text well-known as the Nuremberg L-3-document in the authentic version (3 p.) which until now no historian has ever seen. An English summary of the report (“´Who is, after all, today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians ?´ Research report on Adolf Hitlers Secret Speech to this Supreme Commanders, August 22th 1939 [[12]]) under the title “Cutting the Gordian Knot – The so-called ´Armenian Quote´“ is published at H-Net[[13] 80.136.76.198 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting parts of this article

I suggest changing the introductory paragraph to this:

The Armenian genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) - also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres, and (by Armenians) the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) - refers to the intentional destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after the First World War. It was characterised by the use of massacres and forced deportations, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one-and-a-half million persons.

It improves on the existing version because "Armenian Genocide" does NOT refer to deporting and massacring - those are methods - it refers to the aim and the end result, the aim/result being the destruction of the Ottoman Empires Armenian population. The suggested changed text also indicates that the genocide continued after 1918,and also explains that "Great Calamity" is a phrase that is only used internally by the Armenian communuty. Meowy 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intent here - but exactly how many Armenians were actualy deported out of the Ottoman Empire by the CUP/Young Turk regiem? (and where exactly - outside of the Ottoman Empire - were they allegedly deported to?) IMO (based on review of the scholarly/historical analysis) the word/term "deportation" is in fact a catch phrase of genocide deniers who attempt to minimize what actually occured - as there was no deportation (but instead what occured was uprooting [mass ethnic cleansing - if you will] of the native population and forced starvation and massacre through direct and indirect means - ie. forcd marches through desert areas without food/water etc) - and the claim of such (deportaion) - is entirely false - and referencing the cover story "techir Law" - is in fact a cover up of the (well proven) attempt at extermination and political-cultural anhiliation of the minority Armenian population through means that included (among other methods) uprooting/forced marches (of largely de-maleized populations) as well as direct massacre beyond the sight of outsiders - and these things occured in an entirely organized and massive scale throughout Anatolia - though primarily - but not limited to - the Eastern (Armenian) provinces of the Ottoman Empire. So while I appreciate (and agree with) the points you are trying to make - lets not fall into the trap of accepting (essentially) denialist (and false) terminology.--THOTH (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC) BTW - resettlement is also an oxymoron (not that you have suggested its use - but others have) - as Armenians were never really "settled" anywhere either.--THOTH (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not used the phrase "out of the Ottoman Empire", nor have I used the word "resettlement", so I don't see what your objection to my proposed change is grounded on (or if indeed it is an objection)? When writing my proposed version, I was aware of the limitations in the phrase "It was characterised by the use of massacres and forced deportations", but I was wanting conciseness. If I change it to "It was characterised by the use of massacres and by the use of forced deportations under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees" then that should satisfy fully the point I think you are trying to make. These aspects can then be explained (and words like "forced" and "designed" justified) in greater detail in the main body of the article. Meowy 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps - however my point (and certainly Ackam would agree) is that there was no deportation except as a propoganda ploy by the CUP which has been allowed to enter the lexicon on the Armenian Genocide when in fact there is no truth to such a claim whatsoever. I am not sure what would be the best word - however ethnic cleansing (though not my favorite phrase) perhaps describes the intent of the actions and uprooting (from homes/villages etc) also somewhat describes at least the portion regarding the removal of persons and forced (death) marches pretty much describes what occured from there on out. Regarding the issue/claim (understood - not by you) of resettlement or relocation - well I think that there is some legitimate scholarly debate concerning the degree to which the CUP inner circle - who directed the Armenian Genocide - had decided upon extermination - in advance of WWI (evidence points to intensive discussion and some claim decision as early as 1911) versus how much it was an evolving policy (like the Holocaust was - in regards to the aim actually being extermination of Jews versus "ghettoizing, removing them from the majority societies and using them for forced labor). Some scholars (and Turkish apologists) point to some of the first "deportations" being from Eastern Anatolia to Konya (though most never made it that far and even those who did were qucikly re-uprooted and sent South into the desert...) - where the aim of the CUP apeared to be only lessening of the concentration of Armenians in what had been (in years prior) predominantly Armenian Areas (which were still very culturally Armenian). Even in these cases there apears to be some amount of confusion regarding intent of the central authorities as compared to enactment of orders on the ground (much may be due to the fact of a conflict between orders for public consumption and those delivered by seccret cipher within the CUP party aparatus). In any event both you and I know that the actual policy enacted throughout this period was not relocation - nor was it actually deportation (even if we use such a word for conveinience sake - use of such is actually entirely incorrect). So I very much agree with the intent of your change - diferentiating the methods of genocide from the thing itself - my caution (and yes objection) is relying on the term "deportation". I also think we likely could do a better job in being inclusive in our description - even at the introductory level (and perhaps I could take a cut at this)...not that i think that the current intro is all that bad (for what it is) THOTH (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" wasn't that a phrase dreamed-up by some Washington wag-the-dog think-tank as a way of implying genocide without actually having to produce any evidence to prove genocide? I hope you are not going to b e advocating itsuse here. The word "deportations" has been used since 1915 in relation to the Armenian genocide; one of the best known document's produced to illustrate the genocide's effects is the map titled "The Routes of Deportations" first published back in 1920. Its meaning is clear to me. I have not added the word, it was in the previous version as well. If you have something strong opinion against the use of the word "deportations", then why have you not said anything during the many months that the word has been used in this article? Meowy 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting making changes to the introduction of the article to correct semantic and not actually substantive errors. So I don't understand your objection to my bringing up a very legitimate (semantic)issue with your proposal. I agree (entirely) with your intent - however why fix the issue only part way? It seems obvious to me - considering the scholarly analysis and the known historical record - that no Armenians were actually deported anywhere. In fact the claim of deportation was an Ottoman cover up for what was clearly an attempt (largely sucessful) at mass extermination. I don't think that we should perpetuate this inacuracy. I agree that ethnic cleansing (which includes the concept of both removal and extermination) has a wishy washyness about it (in the manner that some use it to sound less harsh then massacres/mass killings/genocide etc)and would hesitate to recommend its use for these reasons (and in fact the word "genocide" is certainly the more accurate word to describe the entirety of what occured - in plan, enactment and result) - though in fact term ethnic cleansing does provide a good description of the (at least initial) intent of the CUP who wished Armenians removed from Eastern Anatolia and (eventualy) from (nearly all) other areas (of the livable parts of the Ottoman Empire) inhabited by Armenians. So if we are attempting to change the introduction to improve accuracy - particularly in regards to semantics - then I would suggest we do it right. I welcome others to share their thoughts on this matter and maybe they will have some suggestions as to the most appropriate wording. I definitely do have a problem with use of the word deporation - particularly when describing the methodology employed by the CUP. In fact they deported no Armenians that I am aware of (outside of perhaps a few intelectuals from Constantinople or such). A more accurate word to describe the process that you (and yes others) ascribe as deportation is in fact forced (death) marches - after rounding up and uprooting people from their homes (and mostly after the males in the population had already been removed and dealt with by other means (primarily direct massacre). --THOTH (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deportation, used in this manner, would be a simplification and understatement as to what actually occurred. I agree that the term used be "forced (death) marches", for infact that is exactly what was used by the Ottoman Empire.Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what both of you think the meaning of the word "deportation" is, it is not ever going to be removed from the introduction. Deportation is the word used in all literature (excepting denialist propaganda which tend to use words like evacuation or resettlement). I've removed the word "forced" that was used with "deportations": by definition a deportation is forced, and instead used it beside the newly added word "marches". BTW, both of you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose and limitations of an article's introduction. Meowy 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct - and this article will only continue to perpetuate untruth (in regards to misuse of the word "deporation") - and you can congratulate yourself for doing your part in continuing such - but you should know better or at least care more and you obviously don't. I assume accuracy is - if not a purpose - at least a hoped for standard eh? (in an introduction or elswhere in the article) Again - I ask you to please provide evidence of the thriving Armenian colony where Ottoman Armenians were "deported" to by the CUP. If in fact these "so-called" deportations were in effect death marches and not deportations at all - shouldn't this point be clearly made and the fact that the word deportation has entered and remained in the lexicon as a result of deliberate misinformation perpetuated by the Ottoman Authorities attempting to cover up for their crimes and that it is now used primarily out of convenience - but in fact it truly does not at all describe either the intent nor the result of the actions taken.--THOTH (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My observation that the word "deportations" has been used in this article for almost a year, and that during that whole time you never before questioned its use, remains unanswered by you. Before the word "deportation" appeared in the introduction, the phrase "forcible removals" was briefly used, a phrase that carried with it none of the indications of the official organisation and massive scale of what actually happened. Before that, the euphemistic phrase "forced mass evacuation" was used: this is genocide-denialist phraseology used to propagate the lie that the genocide were merely badly-executed evacuations from a war zone. I have noted that in most of your contributions here, including the above contribution, you insinuate that anyone who opposes your personal opinion is a genocide denialist. It seem that, in reality, you are the one advocating denialist terminology. This discussion about the use of the word "deportations" is over as far as I am concerned. Meowy 12:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, frankly you have no unilateral authority here to declare any discusion regarding article content as over nor does it matter what your personal opinion is in regards to my contributions here. I have pretty clearly explained my position on this issue - it is a legitimate concern and that is all that matters. I have expressed support of your attempt to improve the introduction, and in the spirit of improving it I think we should reconsider how we use the term "deportation" as it apears inaccurate and misleading (regardless of its widespread use). Perhaps we have no good alternative - but this does not mean it is not worthy of discussion and I think I have made a good case to at least question its use here. And I certainly don't regard the discussion as closed just because you say so and I think others need to weigh in on this. If the consensus - for whatever reason - is that we use "deportation" - then so be it - and I fully understand that the term is widely used - however, increasingly scholars such as Tanar Akcam and others seem to be questioning its use as it incorrectly describes what occured.--THOTH (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I stated that my discussion with you over the use of the word deportations is over. You are free to continue with whatever you want. I will continue on with more useful things, such as improving the body of this article. Meowy 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are always free not to participate in discussions on this talk page.--THOTH (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I will always make suggestions for important changes to the article here in the talk page first, and will always engage with those wishing to make a positive contribution and will try to incorporate the reasonable views of others in any proposals I make. You, on the other hand, just seem to use this talk page as a platform on which to display your ego as you bash about the head visiting genocide denialists. So much fun do you get from that pastime, that now anyone who disagrees with you here is also classed by you as a denialist. However, the talk page is not a forum to discuss the Armenian genocide or a forum to confront genocide denialists and their propaganda, it is actually a place to discuss the improvement of the Wikipedia entry on the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I discount your mischaracterization of my contributions here. I have previously explained in the talk page how and why I contribute here in the manner that I do and the reasons I have limited my editing of the article. Like you I have expressed concerns in regards to the article's content (or in some case lack therof) and organization and I would do a major re-write of the article (for it to become what I think this topic deserves) - but short of that it is difficult for me to edit the article piecemeil as my vision for it - like yours it seems - conflicts with the current layout and content to a significant degree - so I have limited my edits (and while not perfect I do feel that the article is basically sound though could use much improvement - particularly along the lines of greater relevant detail that you have suggested) however I do believe that my contributions here serve a useful purpose regardless - and limiting/discouraging off-base minority/unfactual POV propogandizing and faulty type of edits is certainly of value IMO. My opposition to such on this talk page is intended to help for these type of edits not to occur and be inserted into the article without myself or others having to resort to edit wars of the actual article - at least that is my hope and I think I've at least had some positive effect in that regard. Of course the subject matter will always lend itself to such regardless. Anyway I am all in favor of your contributing to the article itself in the manner you have proposed and I will certainly comment on particulars that I am either in favor of or oppose though I have no desire to be dictatorial in any way. Take that as you will - but I would suggest you are better to spend your efforts towards relevant discussion and useful edits and refrain from personal attacks and off base psycho-analysis.--THOTH (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Sugestions

We already have the section titled "The Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 period". This is the best-known period, and the period when most of the casualties occurred. However, at the moment the article contains almost no detail about what actually happened!

I suggest giving brief accounts of what happened to Armenians over a spread of locations within the Ottoman Empire. These accounts should not be too extensive - so we should choose, where possible, events that have existing Wikipedia articles. I suggest choosing a location in eastern Turkey (probably the Lake Van region), one in central Turkey (Sivas or Kayseri), one in northern Turkey (Trabzon or Samsun), one in southern Turkey (suggestions?), and one in western Turkey (Ankara, or Adapazar?). We also need to mention areas where no massacres took place (Smyrna, Constantinople, etc.).

I also suggest adding two new sections: "The Armenian Genocide, 1917-1918 period", and "The Armenian Genocide, post-1918 period".
The first new section would deal with the extension of the genocide into territories formerly controlled by the Russian Empire after the collapse of Russia and the successful counter-offensive by Ottoman Turkey.
The second new section would deal with the situation of Armenians in Turkey in the immediate post-WW1 period: e.g. after the surrender of Turkey, Armenian survivors attempted to return to their homes and regain their confiscated property. Foreign relief work: orphans reclaimed, captured females released, etc. Then renewed massacres in Cilicia, oppression everywhere under Kemalist Turkey, and finally almost all the remaining Armenians flee their homes for good.

To allow for this new content there would have to be a radical pruning of existing content: Fortunately there is plenty that can be cut. All of these sections: Life under Ottoman rule; Reform implementation; The Hamidian Massacres; The Young Turk Revolution; The Adana Massacre, are fully covered in existing Wikipedia articles. All that is really needed within this article is a brief summary of why they are relevant to the Armenian genocide and a link to the main article. Meowy 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. As for a southern Turkey location - how about Musa Dagh? Hakob (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No discussion reference

Hi. The current version is clearly very biased towards Armenian thesis and the article has so much debate about it, yet it is presented like it is an undisputed fact in the main article with no whatsoever reference to this discussion page or the "peer-reviewed" version.

Besides all, the opinions of historians who do not prefer to use the term "genocide" are ignored and erased immediately. As a matter of fact, I was terrified by the narrow minded approach of some users blaming me for being obtuse when I wanted to discuss the change the word "most scholars" with words like "many", "some" or "the following" scholars. This article is not (semi-)protected by Wiki rules, but by some obsessive users about this article. Such a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corlumeh (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Armenian thesis". If you believe there is, then that is your shame. I don't see any recent discussion by you here on this page. The meaning of the words "most scholars" are clear - it means the vast majority. However, and remember, the purpose of this article and its talk page is not to confront or answer Armenian Genocide deniers spreading their propaganda, its purpose is to work towards an accurate and encyclopaedic account of the Armenian Genocide. If you want to take issue with the semi-protected and one-revert status of this article, then confront those who made it so: Wikipedia administrators. Meowy 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Corlumeh, if you take a look at the discussion pages of these certain users, you will see that all of them have been warned and blocked several times because of such incidents or involvements in edit wars. When a specific article is holy for a group of users, it is impossible to touch it. Thats where wikipedia's advantage ends. XmuratX (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease removing non-contentious material. It is self-evident that the majority of scholars accept the reality of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, in the article it would have been justified to use the phrase "vast majority" to accurately characterise the extent of that majority, but the article instead used the more neutral and more concensus-building "most scholars". You seem uninterested in those aims. Meowy 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by "lapsed Pacifist"

This editor has just made 16 separate edits; the majority of them are of very dubious quality. He has added "by İsmail Enver's government" - a strange addition, I have never heard such a phrase used in any context regarding the Armenian genocide. In the sentence describing the aspects of the genocide process he has removed the words "the use of" which alters the meaning of the sentence and makes it inaccurate: there were both massacres and deportations, they were not necessarily combined. He has changed "Greeks" to "Pontic Greeks" when actually the genocide of the Empire's Greek population was not confined to the Pontic region. He has changed the ethnically neutral "the Ottoman military" to "Turkish regulars, assisted by Kurdish militia". This is an inaccurate characterisation since not all "regulars" were ethnic Turks and not all "militia" were Kurds. In a number of places he has changed "Ottoman" to "Turkish", and "Ottoman soldiers" to "Turkish soldiers" regardless of the fact that Ottoman would always be the correct word to use. On the modern Turkish State's position he has added the words "choosing instead to take the position that the deaths were the result of anarchy. It is a crime in Turkey to refer to the genocide as such." This is an incorrect statement - there is no such Turkish law, and the Turkish position does not just explain the deaths as due to "anarchy". He has changed "Armenians, for the most, remained dormant during those years" to the POV "Armenians, for the most part, remained loyal to the Ottomans during these years". As well as being POV it is also a fallacy. It alters fundamentally the original meaning of this section. "Dormant" meant not actively advocating reforms, there is no evidence that the Ottoman Armenians were ever "disloyal" to the Empire and advocating for reforms is not "disloyalty". He has, on a number of places, removed "Ottoman government" and replaced it with "Istanbul government". Apart from the phrase itself being silly (do we talk about "Moscow government" as opposed to "Russian government"?) there was no "Istanbul" during this period - the Ottoman Empire used Constantinople as its official name! He has added a large number of trivial wikilinks - there is no need to wikilink words like desert, ravine, church, mosque, and village - and also wikilinks to non-existent articles that are never likely to exist (such as "Aigestan"). Meowy 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Lapsed Pacifist has not responded to the above comments, so I have made some changes to the article to reflect the objections that I have detailed. Meowy 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catches Meowy - and I am in agreement with all of your reverts mentioned above for the reasons so well stated.--THOTH (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"He has added "by İsmail Enver's government""

Was İsmail Enver not in government at the time?

"He has changed "Greeks" to "Pontic Greeks" when actually the genocide of the Empire's Greek population was not confined to the Pontic region."

The article mentioned only Pontic Greeks but linked to Greeks. I corrected this.

"He has changed the ethnically neutral "the Ottoman military" to "Turkish regulars, assisted by Kurdish militia". This is an inaccurate characterisation since not all "regulars" were ethnic Turks and not all "militia" were Kurds."

I thought the article could do with an accurate summary of what was (for the most part) the ethnicites of those involved in the genocide. This was lacking.

"In a number of places he has changed "Ottoman" to "Turkish", and "Ottoman soldiers" to "Turkish soldiers" regardless of the fact that Ottoman would always be the correct word to use."

I feel the over-use of the word "Ottoman" is being used to distance ethnic Turks (the main perpetrators) from the genocide.

"This is an incorrect statement - there is no such Turkish law..."

Writers who refer to the genocide are charged with "insulting Turkishness".

"He has changed "Armenians, for the most, remained dormant during those years" to the POV "Armenians, for the most part, remained loyal to the Ottomans during these years". As well as being POV it is also a fallacy."

"Dormant" is not good English in this context.

"He has added a large number of trivial wikilinks - there is no need to wikilink words like desert, ravine, church, mosque, and village - and also wikilinks to non-existent articles that are never likely to exist (such as "Aigestan")."

That certain links are trivial are (very much) your opinion, Meowy. And I might just want to start an Aigestan article.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that your edits were made in good faith, and some of what you changed is still there. However, the things I pointed out were all valid objections. Trivial wikilinks can be extremely annoying and distracting. I don't think you came to the article with a solid knowledge of the subject and its controversies - that is not necessary a bad thing since it enables you to notice errors and ommisions that others might not - but it does mean you don't see how wrong it was, for example, to change "Ottomans" to "Turks". The former was used not to distance the crime from Turks, but to make the article more accurate and encyclopedic in tone and to avoid getting editors into pointless arguments in this talk page. You are right that there is no explicit mention of the ethnicities of those who did the killing - but that is because of the current inadequacies in the body of the article. Having a heavy-handed summary is not the way to do it, imho. On another point, how about changeing "dormant" to "passive" - that keeps the meaning of the sentence the same. Meowy 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't hold a lot of water. You haven't addressed a lot of the points I raised, and to disguise the peoples responsible under the generic term "Ottoman" right throughout the article leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Don't complain to me about "current inadequacies in the body of the article." Help fix them!

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care what leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I do care that you want insert into this article tabloid-style journalism. Basically, that is what most of your edits amounted to. Meowy 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your brand of whitewash doesn't appeal. And your reasons for reverting my edits grow ever more diverse.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor Quality Article of Little Scholarly Value

The article very much reflects the motivation of the contributers; that is Armenian recognition campaigners and Turks trying to counter them. This is an issue being played out on a global scale and this page is just another arena for it.

As for improving it, a better balanced bibliography would a start. There is far too much reliance on Balakian and Dadrian, whose work has the subject of extreme critism by several historians for scholarly liberties. Why does this article not include, for example, the work of Gwynne Dyer - both a Middle East and History historian - who has the rare distinction of having been in both the Ottoman archives and the Ottoman Military archives. There are countless other examples of valuable work that could be mentioned, but the basic point is that anything that disagrees with Armenian campaign literature is left out, and some of the most controversial works supporting it (like Balakian and Dadrian who have been called accused by other historians of all sorts of scholarly violations, including willful mistranslations, use of forgeries etc) feature so extensively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.28.86 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Hilmar Kaiser, who, in his attempt to access the same 'records' as McCarthy was forcibly removed from the Ottoman Archives and henceforth banned! http://www.gomidas.org/books/kaiser.htm Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the same Hilmar Kaiser who bemoaned Dadrian's "misleading quotations" and "selective use of sources", concluding that "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value."?

This would seem to vindicate the point I made - even historians like Kaiser, who can not possibly be considered pro-Turkish (as all historians who disagree with the Armenian line are accused of being) warn us about relying on the very sources this article has used for any serious scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.27.28 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully Protected

Maybe im not aware fully of wikipedia rules, but why aren`t pages as serious an issue as this, fully protected at all times. Rockybiggs (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So many people are watching this page that it is as good as fully protected. Steelmate (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian G--Namsos (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)enocide

The modern Turkish government continues to protest the formal recognition of the genocide by other countries.

Recently the word was replaced with current, because it is official policy of them to deny what happened to the Armenians, they denied this 50 years ago, 20 years ago and still deny it. And modern is something that is useful in our daily life, why do we need this word before the Turkish government? Are they modern? MarshallBagramyan said: Because the Turkish Republic has always denied it; "current" would imply that it's just Erdorgan's administration. I agree with him, but it is limiting the denial to this government and then I strongly disagree with using modern. Contemporary would be a better choice. xeryus (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simply a word used to differentiate the Republic of Turkey with the common association between Turks and autocracy in the days of the Ottoman Empire to the republic established by Ataturk in 1923. If you want, we can change it to the "Republic of Turkey [has always?] denies/disagrees that..." If we should not limit this to the government, perhaps we can also add that "many Turks today also disagree that..." In the end, it's a question of semantics. You're free to change the words so long as they may convey that meaning. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in a section titled "The Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" - there is no ancient Turkish republic, so I think the word "modern" is actually not needed. If what is meant is to say that the current government in Turkey is continuing with the policy of denial started by its predecessors, then why not just say "the current government in Turkey"? Meowy 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POV_forks it says:

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.

and: all countries accept deads. some of the countries say these events are genocide, also some of the countries say these events are massacre dont say genocide and some of countries refuse two of them.

finally: wikipedia is not a court. you can not refuse the other countries declarations against the genocide define. and you cannot give a name including genocide word. genocide is your idea. this is not NPOV article. thanks--Qwl (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin the person who coined 'genocide' used it to refer to Armenians, Assyrians and Jews. Countless historians and scholars agree it is Genocide. Just because some Turks, with no knowledge on the subject such as modern day deniers in Turkey, or a another example would be the Turkish government does not mean it is not genocide. Sorry but the Ottoman archives are useless, files of files of valuable documentation was destroyed. I think Russian, American, British and several other archives are enough proof, especially historians agreeing it is Genocide. So please take that rubbish elsewhere. We've discussed this a thousand times this article will always be 'Armenian Genocide' --Namsos (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it depend on your decisions? (WILL ALWAYS BE)?!?

Since there is NO genocide, one day political situation will change again and TRUTH will become more visible...

Remember Turkey called Armenia to open the archives and Turkish and Armenian historicians cooperate on this manner... What was the answer of the Armenian Govenment? "No there will be no discussion"... No Discussion No Truth!

Gundoganfa (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is NOT a forum! xeryus (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xeryus, but I will respond once more. Whatever Armenia says is irrelevant how do you expect Armenia to have archives when our territory was occupied by the Ottoman Empire and Russia? you can find proof of Armenian Genocide in Russian archives. Turkey also declined a Armenian Genocide debate a while ago, whats your point? --Namsos (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

His point is that, even if there was a genocide we will never accept the fact that there was a genocide. xeryus (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I tend to forget that :P --Namsos (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So it boils down to a solution that those Armenians are sticked to a single point, denying everything, sticking to the diaspora's point of view and wikipedia is an unfortunate middleman in this situation. You should really start to think about neutralizing it, otherwise, as stated many times before, it will kill the belief in wikipedia as the biggest neutral internet encyclopedia. What is being tried to done in this scene of the talk page is that the defenders are like cornered rats, their lies are about to be discovered and they have the courage of the cornered rats. It's most obvious throughout the page, c'mon you can't be that dumb to logical solutions. We offer you to compare&contrast the archives and you refuse. Give us a logical explanation for that, not just a refusal or a denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.56.99 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is we? If here is a fact and the truth, what else is there to compare? xeryus (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination to be the main page on the 24th xApril.

Since the 24th April is coming very soon, I think placing the Armenian Genocide on the Today's featured article will be very appropriate. xeryus (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it should be nominated as one of the most biased articles in wikiland, I think that would make more sense! Amjikian (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Someone posted this to one of the Wikipedia mailing lists today:

Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. [14]

This was my reply:

Other than knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim. [15]

I'm not saying the opposition should be coddled or its viewpoint condoned, but as an ardent believer in Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I think it'd be nice if the opposition viewpoint could be stated neutrally here, too. Remember, the focus of this article ought to be "What happened to Armenians in the post-WWI Ottoman Empire?" No matter how wrong the official Turkish viewpoint is, this article is not the place to say that the viewpoint is wrong. No matter how wrong nationalist Turks are for holding and promoting that viewpoint, this article is not the place to punish them for doing so. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the article is written inline with Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight.Genisock2 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

At first glance, the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section reads like "The Turkish government claims <vague claim> but everyone agrees they're totally wrong because <specific cited source> and <specific cited source> and <specific cited source> and <specific cited source> and <specific cited source>." That's precisely the sort of subjective coverage that NPOV says we're supposed to avoid.

If I want to learn more about the "official" Turkish claims (no matter how wrong they are, and no matter how wrong I know they are), I can't really do that here, and that's too bad. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the views of Holocaust-deniers on the Holocaust? Why aren't they listed on the Holocaust page? Where is the concern for NPOV regarding the Holocaust page? I believe that if ANY changes are to be made concerning NPOV of genocides, they should start with the Holocaust and work from there. The Holocaust page contains no mention of any counter viewpoint.[[16]] Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust#Aftermath and historiography -- xeryus (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kansas Bear, that's a very interesting point. I don't quite agree with it, but I'm not going to argue it here.

The bulk of the Holocaust denial arguments are described, of course, on the Holocaust denial page. (And of course there's a Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide page, too, so that's nicely parallel.)

I found this passage particularly interesting:

Many scholars refuse to engage Holocaust deniers or their arguments at all, feeling that in so doing they would give Holocaust deniers unwarranted legitimacy.

A second group of scholars, typified by historian Deborah Lipstadt, have tried to raise awareness of the methods and motivations of Holocaust denial, while trying not to legitimize the deniers themselves. Lipstadt explained her goals:

"We need not waste time or effort answering the deniers' contentions. It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by those who freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss reams of testimony. Unlike true scholars, they have little, if any, respect for data or evidence. Their commitment is to an ideology and their 'findings' are shaped to support it."

A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on. They address the arguments and claims made by Holocaust denial groups by pointing out the errors of their evidence.

Personally, I find myself agreeing most with Prof. Lipstadt. I'd say that our Holocaust page, viewed in isolation, seems more in line with that first group of scholars. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole section for the opposing view on Armenian Genocide. See Denial of the Armenian Genocide --Namsos (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Theoretically, though, that's less than ideal. According to WP:NPOV, "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.". —Steve Summit (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

suckered

Sheesh. The email that prompted me to start this thread was part, I now learn, of an organized campaign by ASIMED.

So I was suckered.

Now, although I don't agree with the "official Turkish position", I do believe, and I was willing to argue, that it ought to have been presented more neutrally in this article. But I'm not going to argue or work for that any more; I've got better things to do than be a patsy. Sorry to anyone I've offended, but no apologies to ASIMED. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I guess they want us to remove semi protection so they can start editing there own version of the Armenian Genocide. --Namsos (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found the article and came by to see if it was posted. If emailing the mailing list is their strategy they obviously have no idea how to edit Wikipedia. 141.161.133.1 (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

did you edit your own version???--Qwl (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who or what you're asking. Me, I did edit this article, yes, in an attempt to improve it. But there's no such thing as "my version". WP:OWN. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Summit has just discovered that ignoring the golden rule of the internet (to lurk moar) will result only in embarassment! Meowy 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad first picture

Is it just me or is the first picture to appear on the article insufficient? It looks small, and grainy. Is there a way to ask Armenian National Institute if we can use some of their pictures? E10ddie (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, none of the images published by Armenian organisations are that useful for encyclopaedic use - very few of them seem to have proper captions such as date taken, location, etc. Meowy 11:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I find the pictures very relevant and useful as they greatly enhance the visiting wikipedian's experience by clearly portraying the effects of the Genocide. Which pictures are you referring to Meowy? Maybe we can try and identify the missing information. It would definitely help...HyeProfile (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkey and the Ottoman Empire

The article states that Turkey is the succesor state of the Ottoman Empire. It's true that the turks were the dominant people in the EMpire but it can't be said that Turkey is in fact the succesor state. Turkey was created as a completely different political entity from the Ottoman Empire based on the Nation-State model created by the french revolution. The Ottoman Empire was an absolute monarchy which controled many territories divided in a kind of feudal system so there was never a political continuity of any kind from the Empire to Turkey Nestor.kyat (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The Treaty never states as such, and recognizes the Republic of Turkey as a sepparate entity from the Ottoman Empire, which had already collapsed and been disbanded in the Treaty of Severs.76.89.149.99 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

concerted whitewash effort by myotsis and meowy

It is surprising to observe that there is not a single critical article on Armenians. It is as if there is a coordinated and concerted effort to portray all Armenians as highly gifted and intelligent, innocent and peace loving individuals. Even the Armenian Nazi legion were, according to the wiki article, composed of freedom fighters whose sole mission was to save Jews. Look at the article on ASLA, the criminal nature of this organization is toned down somewhat, you almost get the impression that their murderous campaign was justified. As for the so called Genocide, there is scant mention of Armenian massacres, it is as if the whole Armenian population was composed of children, women and the elderly all waiting to be slaughtered. It is also as if all the missionary eyewitnesses where waiting in strategic locations for the massacres to take place. How strange! In any case it is clear to me that these articles are higly biased and therefore reflect negatively on the overall quality of Wikipedia. What a shame! Amjikian (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep comments on-topic, as posts the do not directly concern the article are likely to be removed as trolling. Thank you. The Myotis (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is off-topic in my POV? What I am expressing is related to this article and others directly. Isn't your mere suggestion that this is trolling an attempt in censorship? Amjikian (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not directly related unless it it relates to something specific written in the article. This is xneither the place to discuss your views on the event nor your views on the way wikipedia works. The Myotis (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just mentioned that all articles to do with Armenian, including this one,s portray them in a positive light. My observation has something to do directly with this article. Proof? There is nothing negative in here about the Armenians! What else do you need? Amjikian (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First of, what you view as positive and negative is irrelevant, at it is your own POV. If you believe that a specific article is NPOV, specify what is wrong and bring it up on that talk page. Making vague accusations of conspiracies is unproductive and a waste of space. Also, your strange desire to see a ethnic group portrayed negativley is very suspect, and would violate NPOV. The Myotis (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not negative but more balanced, a bit like ying and yang, there is nothing NPOV in any of the articles related to Armenians, they are all positive, that turns it more into a propaganda piece than anything else but I am starting to get the imprssion that your intentions here are certainly not to promote a more neutral approach so I suggest we end this conversation! Amjikian (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I see a strong and clearly-argued objection within 24 hours, I'm going to remove this entire "conversation" since it appears to be off-topic and not suitable for an article's talk page. Meowy 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, your attempt to appear impartial on this matter is laughable at best. And who on Earth are you to threaten removal? Let me get this straight, what you are saying is that my gripe with this article is off-topic? So not even in the discussion section can we object to the highly biased and subjective way in which the article has been constructed? I guess the right way to describe this attitude of yours is whitewash galore! Amjikian (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not impartial to the off-topic clutter that often fills this talk page and pushes out legitimate and constructive contributions. Meowy 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything unconstructive in my statements, I am just highlighting the tremendous bias in these articles so how exactly does that make it off-topic? Amjikian (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is biased in this article, but you are obviously biased on the Armenian Genocide. --Namsos (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that is an awkward remark considering your Greek sounding nickname! Amjikian (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, your spelling is atrocious. Second, there is nothing wrong with believing than an article is biased. But unless you specify what part of the article you see bias in, what part exactly you think should be changed , then there really is nothing to discuss. That is the difference between a contributer and a troll. If you do not specify anything by the end of today, this topic will be removed again.The Myotis (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with my spelling but I can point to two of yours in the very first sentence: "First ofF, youR spelling is atrocious". Your suggestion that I give examples is kind of silly considering that I am criticizing this article for stuff that is left out, i.e. a more balanced approach instead of just one sided. But I guess you are a fervent supporter of this one sided view so arguing with you is just futile. Amjikian (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have given no examples of what you think should be included either, and it seems you do not intend to, but would rather continue to accuse us of being one-sided. Rather than make any effort to improve the article, you have gone on a trolling spree of ad-hominem attacks and vague accusations. That is why this post was deleted, and why it will be again. The Myotis (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Either I am not expressing myself well or you have cognitive issues, for some reason I think it is the latter because you keep repeating yourself ad-nauseam! Amjikian (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it is clearly off-topic. And, yes, I have been repeating myself, but so far you seem oblivious to the points I have made. The Myotis (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Has it occured to you that maybe your suggestions that it is off-topic is just a POV and not a neutral one at that? My suggestion is constructive criticism but it seems to me that no criticism whatsoever is tolerated here! It is not up to me to start changing the article, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject matter (at least I am honest about this point) but I can also say that the persons that created and edited this article are highly biased because by reading it, one gets the impression that Turks just woke up one fine day and decided to go an a mudering rampage a la Rawanda style! Amjikian (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point.The Myotis (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Amjikian, the only thing The Myotis is trying to say is that if you believe the article is biased, then the best way to help is to point out which parts of it are biased and how to improve them. Pending this, your 5000+ words in this subtitle are, respectfully, completely useless and irrelevant... I would also point out that since there is constant debate surrounding this topic, any obvious portrayal of a polarized POV will automatically identify you with one side or the other, and won't help at all. I sincerely suggest you change your approach if you want to improve this article, or you will only be providing ammunition to the opposing POV side.HyeProfile (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Nemesis

I think Operation Nemesis should be included in the Aftermath section not the resistance section. For starters it did not come into effect until the 1920s. I'll change to to this category unless I see opposition in the next few days. E10ddie (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've no objections. Meowy 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

section "Armenians siding with invading Russians"

A new section has been added (Armenian_Genocide#Armenians_siding_with_invading_Russians), and I cant see much redeeming value in it. I can see that there could be a little expansion to the sub-topic of Armenians siding with the invading Russians, especially if there were atrocities committed by the Armenians against the Turkish as that is relevant, however should be covered by separate well-referenced articles before being introduced here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section for a number of reasons. 1. the original version was copy pasted entirely from armenianreality.com, even with citation it strikes me as being against wikipedia's policy to copy and paste entire websites, non-objective ones at that. 2. the modified version was unsubstantiated and filled with effusive words like "alleged," etc. 3. The intent of this section is to deny the genocide and therefore would be better suited to the denial of the armenian genocide article. E10ddie (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with its deletion. There was nothing within the deleted material worth salvaging. Meowy 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

about pictures of deniers

Turkish Military have Ottoman Archive Documents: Now Documents are in Military Archive everyone can see that pictures. some archive documents are published. you can install all of them from the Military Site (Here:[[17]]). The pictures are published on these academical documents. please see this document[18] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that picture. You can understand why Armenia dont discuss these events with Turkey.

And please see this talk Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#what is the problem about pictures?? on Wikipedia.--Qwl (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want people to take you seriously, you will have to find images that come from a scholarly or otherwise NPOV third-party source. You do not seriously believe that we will accept the word of the Turkish military as undebatable truth, do you? The Myotis (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

heheeheee you are funny. how can i believe armenian fake sites. show me your academical sources.--Qwl (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Check external links list. The Myotis (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

i dont talk about the list. i can prepare a list with more links. i asked you reliable sources about these pictures? who published? information about orginal documents. 2. party sources gives these details. others are third party. encylopedias and your sites are third party. please give me the link of 2. party academical book or research book of your documents? --Qwl (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk about the list? The information is there, cited and academic. Asking me to provide a list is asking me to copy-paste from the article. The fact remains the photos you uploaded come are mislabeled and come from an NPOV source. Do no derail the topic by asking for info you already have. The Myotis (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

these article full of newspapers references. these are fourth party refreneces about this article. show me the academical researches with references? you must clear biased refrences in thşs article. --Qwl (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

and if you dont accept Turkish References. i cant accept Armenians references--Qwl (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

my references are available now on military site.--Qwl (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Armenian Genocide, so, even if the obviously propagandistic nature of the source was to be overlooked, it is still unlikely that any of the images that Qwl wishes to use have a place here. From what I can see, the vast majority appear to be from the context of either alleged revenge attacks by Armenian forces in the 1918 or later period in the Kars and Igdir (Surmali) regions or from armed conflict between Armenian and Muslim elements in those same regions - regions which were not part of the Ottoman empire and events which occured long after 1915.

Maybe some mention of these alleged revenge attacks should be mentioned in the aftermath section. I've use the word "alleged" because no third-party has ever looked at the evidence, and Turkish sources always descend into laughable propaganda. The source cited by Qwl is an example of that laughable propaganda. Take vol 1 page 97-99. Wedged beteween two letters, both written in 1915 we are told, is an undated photo of a street in Kars, that must have been taken in 1918 at the earliest. The photo, according to the caption, shows a "shopping district burned down by Armenians". Kars, of course, was a city in the Russian empire whose population was mostly Armenian. The district and buildings depicted are Russian-period constructions and the district was inhabited by Armenians. So the photo in all probability depicts Armenian shops and houses burned down by the Turks when they captured Kars in 1918. Meowy 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So what you are insinuating is that no massacres were ever perpetuated by Armenians on Turks? And the Turkish government is no authority on the matter because it represents Turkey's views on the matter, that anyone who counters the alleged genocide must automatically be on the payroll of the Turkish government? Boy, that is what I call fermenting eternal animosity by presenting and maintaining only one side of the story. But please, go ahead with this brainwashing circus, if you think that you can force a lie instead of approaching it in an impartial manner you are making a big mistake. Sorry to say this coordinated thuggish attitude won't hold. Amjikian (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Turkish government sources are objective. For one thing, they aren't even consistent. When speaking to westerners, Turkish officials bemoan the mutual tragedy that both Armenians and Turks experienced, and say that both sides killed each other in equal numbers. Yet Turkey's government simulteniously builds museums to commemmorate the evil, vicious, diabolical Turkish genocide committed by Armenians. There is a huge difference between these two theories, and there is no such inconsitencey on behalf of Armenians. E10ddie (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah well I am not going to waste any time debating this with you because from your choice of words (ie evil, vicious, diabolical) I see you hold a highly biased opinion on this matter. When the Armenian government and thier thuggish diaspora executioners use carpet bombing techniques to spew their one sided views, it forces those with an opposing view to adopt a tit for tat approach. Sorry but it is this attitude that has sowed the seeds of extreme antagonism Amjikian (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha... "the Armenian government..." Hakob (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this related to the Armenian Genocide article of wikipedia again? VartanM (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hypocracy!

i want to note to the article. how you decide a government document is biased. you must show realy good documents with references. they are academical documents.

you say one side document. all pictures and references are armenian side. where is the view of six countries. all genocide allegations target Ottoman and Turkey. you must write Turkey's arguments. NPOV is here. YOUR pages include attacks to Turkey. you wil say funny reasons to block all deniers materials. hypocracy!--Qwl (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ok Qwl, you win, lets do it your way. Oh, but we should then also fill the Holocaust page with denialist dribble because Iran denies the Holocaust, in fact, you might throw Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc in there for good measure. Plus we can include pictures of murdered Ernst vom Rath, as proof that 6 million Jews deserved to be slaughtered enmasse.Sheesh E10ddie (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So now we are equating the free, democratic republic of Turkey with the fundamentalist and totalitarian regimes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria? I see it is the exact same techniques use to try to draw parallels between the alleged genocide and the Nazis. Truly pathetic. Amjikian (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Free democratic republic"?? Biased much? And in any case, the democratic nature of the country has no bearing to whether or not their opinions should be taken for fact. Minority and majority POV rules are still in effect. The Myotis (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

HA!"free, democratic republic of Turkey". Thats the same free democratic republic that has the Article 301 (Turkish penal code) and prosecuted Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink, ultimately leading to the death of the latter. Thank you Amjiian, this section is starting to match with its title. Oh and you should defiantly check the WP:TALK where it states that talk pages are not forums. VartanM (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Armenian, bitter to the core. One thing is for sure though, there is far greater freedom in Turkey than there will ever be in your land locked Armenia where corruption is just another word for normalcy.Amjikian (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia dont belong to US or Europe. Here is an encyclopedia. we must write all facts and point of view. i invite you to NPOV--Qwl (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If you're using an online translator its very sucky. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

picking fun of others are we? Says a lot about your maturity!Amjikian (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Amjikian, this article isn't meant to be a "democracy" pissing contest between the Republic of Armenia and Turkey. It is meant to inform readers about the genocide of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population. Your complaint has been that there is a pro-Armenian slant in Armenian-related Wikipedia articles, but what changes do you propose for this article in particular? Hakob (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about first including original documents about Armenian actions? Also the article seems to simply ignore the forged evidence that was created by Armenians. The article has to answer why such forged documents exists. The article is simply too biased to take it as an educational article yet a lot of people do read it to learn about this issue. There isn't even a single original document reference in the article to back up the claims. It's simply an epic fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeremS (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are denialist

I reverted Adoniscik edits, I don't think we need POV denialist links. --Namsos (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scans of primary sources are "denialist"? This is patent absurdity. Where do you think books get their information from? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the site is http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/. Just click on any entry and you will get a link to a PDF scan and its Turkish translation. What more can you ask for? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need info in Turkish on English Wikipedia. It also does not make it NPOV as you say it is a 'primary source'.--Namsos (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The originals are in Arabic. What other language could they be in? These are the sources all books--Armenian, Turkish, and otherwise--are based on. Look at Dadrian's latest book. It's replete with references to the Ottoman State Archives--as it should be. Wikipedia has no policy on excluding languages other than English; that's what the {{tr icon}} {{ar icon}} templates are for. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just from the little Turkish I do know, the site's sole purpose appears to to "prove" that the Armenians didn't experience genocide. I am suspicious that these sources may represent cherry picking on behalf of the Turkish government to portray their predecesors in the best possible light. However, Adoniscik, if you can demonstrate that the site also includes sources from the archives, ie. # 48-50 on page 416 in A Shameful Act paperback ed. (Takvim-i Vekiyi #3543), that are used by Akcam to demonstrate a genocidal intent, then I'll believe its a NPOV site. E10ddie (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I deleted the link to Khojaly events as they're irrelevant here. No any sources are directly connecting them. And Ambrosio's words on "10% territory of Azerbaijan" is an old propagandist POV as NKR wasnt occupied "by Armenians", but became independent according to self-determiantion rights of local population. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

I believe the article should be changed to another name. Perhaps another more Wikipedia kind of name. Wikipedia is suppoessed to be very nuetral and it is. But this article should be perhaps changed to 'Armenian Genocide Theory' or 'Armenian Genocide Claims' in order to neutralize the article. That way it doesn't take away from the Armenian claims or negate them and also doesn't show the Ottomans as the one 'Guilty Party' or the 'Aggressors'. If any other Wikipedians have an idea for this article please post your and we can disscuss this issue.--rokkafellah (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not pander to fringe views, those are shipped off to Denial of the Armenian Genocide. A Neutral view is that the genocide occurred, and that it was carried out by the Ottomans, anything else is ludicrous. Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a page to 'prove'the Armenian Genocide though. It is a page to present views from both sides and a page to present a neutral view of events. If everything else is 'ludicrous' as you say, then why are there so many that do not believe in the point (notice no plural amount being represented in the article) of view? Tell me why evidences of the Aremenian side has more 'credibillity' and 'truth' than that of the Ottomans'? I'm not saying I believe this or that, but I don't want some kid coming here to do a project or something to be shown everything through the eyes of Armenians. --rokkafellah (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The majority of historians agree it was a genocide. There is basically no historian who believes in the 'Turkish version' except for the Turks and Justin McCarthy who is bias, and worked for the Turkish government. Plus there is evidence for Armenian Genocide in Russian, UK, German, American archives while there is no proof for your claims elsewhere only in supposed Ottoman archives where it was proved by Taner Ackam that many archived documents were deleted. The fact is modern day Turks don't want to accept this, it happened, there is proof, even if it is real, Turks will continue to deny. --Namsos (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking people to accept it or even try to. What I'm saying is give both sides to let people see for themselves. I never said 'I am agianst this theory of Armenian Genocide', did I? Please read what I have said and don't stuff words in my mouth. People like 'Namsos' and 'Dance with the Devil' seem to have seen these events with their eyes and have had their minds shut to different ideas. This case is not so 'Black and White' consider every variable and question before going and saying such things. This matter is not just Turks vs. Armenians it's Turks vs. Humanity if your 'idea' of the events is true. So, please take careful research.

The issue here is that virtually all reputable sources back up that the genocide occurred, and was committed by the Turks. As this is the acknowledged consensus of historians and academics, Wikipedia's articles will, according to WP:NPOV, reflect this too. That is all that we can do as a tertiary source. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rokkafellah, don't bother, this article is a pure propaganda piece and is closely guarded by those that have a deep hatred towards anything that is even remotely Turkish. Just take a look at those that contribute most to this article, mainly Armenians, Greeks or brainwashed sympathizers. As the borg would say: "resistance is futile" Amjikian (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style dictates how articles are named, it being roughly "The name by which something is most widely known in English, by which English-speakers are most likely to recognise it and refer to it". So Armenian Genocide is the correct name. WilyD 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

you accept only consensus of your historians and your academics. you hide other point of views. you write only your ideas. --Qwl (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sides' view must be brought to light and seen. Until you (dance with the devil and nasmos)are taken out of your dream and into a reality, then this article will always be a biased and non-wikipedia class article.--rokkafellah (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rokkafellah, the name of this article should be 'Armenian Genocide Claims', but I know that the subjective writers of this page won't change the name. "The name by which something is most widely known in English" case would be true if the article had a neutral point of view, but the article is from the point of view of the claimists. Actually it doesnt matter so much because I think even a kid reading this article will understand that this article is not a neutral document about the armenian genocide but it is written to defend the claims. So I think it is best if it stays as it is. Reading this article just by chance made me question the other articles on Wikipedia. I think ı need a more reliable source.Vk1138 (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that's simply not the way things work. NPOV doesn't mean equal time to all positions, it means merited time to all positions. So Apollo 11 doesn't devote half the article to calling the moon landings faked, because nobody doing lunar science believes this (and any idiot with a lazer can confirm they happened). Queen Elizabeth II doesn't give equal time to the theories that she's a human and she's a reptilian humanoid, because they don't merit the same amount of time, and don't have the same amount of support among those who know what they're talking about. Evolution mentions political contraversy, but also gives the correct situation on the ground, because less scientists have endorsed alternatives than scientists named Steve have endorsed evolution, and the literature on the subject is entirely one-sided. And this is precisely the same. Nobody who has the vaguest clue what they're talking about believes this was anything but a Genocide. The worldwide consensus of researchers is that this happened roughly the way we all know it happened. A very small minority dissent from this position, and if that dissent came from anywhere other than Turkey's government, we'd probably give it even less weight. As it stands, we're probably giving the "Official Turkish" claim far too much credence, but such is life. So just as we give Lambda-CDM model far more weight than MOND because the overwhelming majority of astronomers give credence the former rather than the latter, so here must we follow the lead of those scholars and researchers who've investigated the problem. WilyD 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say but your analogies are a little far fetched. The point of contention here is in the wording and it is a big deal. Nobody denies that a massacre took place, but to go from there and call it a full fledged genocide and put it in the same league as the nazi holocaust is ridiculous and rightly contested. You have to put things into context: a rapidly crumbling empire, war on all fronts, rebellions on almost all territories, weakened and demoralized forces, and, to top it all, a Russian sponsored Armenian call to arms to carve up its own territory. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. retaliated with a nuclear holocaust that, together with the firebombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, but was it ever called a genocide? Yes it differs in that we are talking about two countries at war with each other but how different is that to a situation in which land that belongs to you is being taken away? Do you think that the state of Isreal would hesitate to use the N bomb if Palestinian territories and a chunk of Jerusalem was taken from them by force? Amjikian (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but your weasel tactics to justify the mass slaughter of a million armenians are a bit far fetched. You can make all of those same points of contention about the Holocaust, the only difference is that Turkey still retains the same racist culture, whereas Germany has changed, and refrains from further ruining its reputation by insulting its victims. Yes, NAZIs also considered the USSR to be controlled by Jews, and yes there were Jewish regiments fighting against Germany, even those comprised of German Jews who fled persecution. Does this justify the Holocaust? No, neither do such arguments justify the genocide commited against Armenians by Turks. E10ddie (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to the third reich is irresponsible and lame to say the least. It is a sorry attempt to raise the importance of the Armenian massacres to the status of a genocide, which it is certainly not! Germany did not come to terms with its genocide because they wanted to, they were forced to do so after being defeated. Even the Japanese think that getting nuked was probably the best solution. You can pretty much impose anything you want on a surrendering country. Oh and there is nothing racist about Turkish culture unless your definition of racist is one that tries to protect its own culture! This has been an ongoing battle since 1453. Amjikian (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Courts-martial

This may be the most trivial post regarding this article, but I changed the many referrals to "court-martials" to "courts-martial." This is because a court martial is a court, i.e. a trial. It isn't a "martial." The word "martial" is an adjective - it describes the type of court, a military (or "martial") court. OK, everyone can resume flaming each other about the history. Isoruku (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Isoruku

I have reversed this edit. "Courts-martial" seems to be an Americanism. The correct term here would seem to be "court martial" (or pl. "court martials") because the court martials were undertaken when Constantinople was under British control and they were set up mostly as an attempt by Ottoman Turkey to placate Britain so Britain would not take more punitive actions. Meowy 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, the only spelling in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (COD)is courts-martial. The big one (Oxford English Dictionary) goes further to say that court-martials is incorrect. Thus it is not an Americanism.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When looking into it more, it seems that the "courts martial" form is actually (for most British readers) an anachronistic though correct usage rather than an Americanism (though it is probably more common in America - a bit like America still using the word "Fall" do describe what Britain now calls "Autumn" but also once used to call "Fall"). A quote from Fowler's Modern English Usage: "...the popular tendency is to disregard these niceties that has already made court martials and poet laureates sound at least as natural to us as the more correct courts martial and poets laureate". I'm not sure if that part was written in the 1950s for the 2nd edition, or was also in the first edition from 1906. So, what was described 50 (or maybe 100) years ago as sounding "at least as natural", will sound correct for a lot of readers in 2008. To me, saying "courts martial" sticks out as sounding wrong, even though it is "the more correct" according to Fowler writing maybe a century ago. (However the supposedly anachronistic "poets laureate" still sounds the correct one to me). Meowy 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good old Fowler's. I must admit that courts-martial always sounded weird to this non-military ear. However, it really isn't anachronistic when you can find in a quick search on Google News April 2008 usage from three continents: Guardian, UK - Apr 16, 2008, Sydney Morning Herald, Australia - Apr 4, 2008, CBC.ca, Canada - Apr 16, 2008, Stars and Stripes, DC. --Joel Mc (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Van resistance and Yudenich

The section on the Van resistance states it lasted until General Yudenich rescued them. Unfortunately, the significance of this isn't stated. It's not until 6 paragraphs later that we learn that the Russians captured the town from the Ottomans. Could someone please revise this section to state that they were relieved by the Russians?

71.212.4.53 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ottomans abandoned their siege of Van on May 3rd. On May 4th the entire city of Van and its citadel was in the hands of its Armenian inhabitants. On May 7th the Russian army entered the city. The Ottoman army (together with its Kurdish irregulars - little more than opportunistic mobs of rapists and murderers) abandoned the siege and began to retreat to the western shores of Lake Van because the Russians were approaching - but its probably incorrect to say that the Armenian defenders of Van were "relieved by the Russians" because they were already in full control of the city by the time the Russians arrived. Meowy 16:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

U s Medical Missionaries

Having lived in Adana we made friends with US Medical Missionaries who had lived through the Armenian Genicide. Mrs. Knutes first husband was killed by the Turkish Army while trying to help Arminians. Dr. Knute witnessed the atrocities and has been documented on film recounting what happened. Dr. & Mrs. Knute stayed in Turkey until the late 1950's They gave medical care to anyone who needed it. What I learned from the Knutes is that one should never forget, but working for the common good should be the objective. This is what Wikipedia is about, so please lets follow the Knute's example and love all good people. Saltysailor (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In theory it is, but in practice the "common good" is not what Wikipedia is about. It is mostly a press-pack for lazy, ignorant journalists, and a medium for petty tyrants (such as administrators and those higher up Wikipedia's pyramid of power) to express themselves, and as such it will always be an easy target for propagandists. Meowy 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Deportation vs Resettlement

While the heading of the section contains "deportation", the bulk of the article then goes on to describe the law passed to "re-locate" and "re-settle" (not eliminate) Armenian populations first around Van who have rebelled and represented in the eyes of the Ottoman goverment then a fatal threat in the face of Russian advances on the same front. Deportation techncially involves two states. Whereas Tehcir mostly involved a single state, where the Armenian populations (not all non-Muslims, and not all Armenians), were moved involuntarily to another region of the Ottoman Empire. They were not deproted in other words. This is why I edited and corrected this incorrect use of the word. Hope acceptable to all. --Murat (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Relocation directs me to population transfer, while deportation seems to better fit the definition of what happened to the empire's Armenian population. Hakob (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the laws were, in fact, passed with elimination of deportees in mind, and since the target minorities were not provided with food, water or dwellings that would constitute 're-settlement', I think 'deportation' suits the context just fine. I suppose we could just replace the word with 'death march' or 'massacre' if you feel we are at serious risk of confusing readers. The Myotis (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The law was not (to quote Murat) created to "re-locate" and "re-settle" (not eliminate) Armenian populations first around Van who have rebelled - the Armenian population around Van had mostly been exterminated by the time the Tehcir law had been enacted. "Tehcir" is an obsolete word, best I can find it means a movement of peoples, a migration, or a change of abode - but I don't know if the word is just used as a short description for the real title of the law, or if that was its full title. And of course the law's aim was neither to deport or to relocate those affected by the law, its aim was to create the necessary conditions to exterminate those affected by the law. Meowy 21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph at the head of this article may need a caption giving date and details. It shows naked corpses guarded by soldiers and by implication illustrates a scene from the actual Armenian Genocide. The problem is that the soldiers wear Imperial Russian Army - not Turkish - uniforms of the period prior to 1908 (the white summer tunics shown were replaced by khaki that year). This may seem a trivial detail but, if the photo proves to have nothing to do with the actual Armenian atrocities during World War I, it will just strengthen the arguments of those who attempt to deny that genocide occured.210.246.8.125 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the same with most AG related photos you find on the web or in books - they have little or no information about dates and locations and so on. I don't think there is enough detail in that photo to identify things like uniform colour, but they are Russian army uniforms. I'd guess that if it is from the WW1 period they are Russian soldiers who have discovered the corpses of recently-murdered Armenians as they advanced through eastern Turkey. But guessing isn't good enough for an article that is meant to be encyclopedic - so maybe the photo should be removed unless more facts can be found to prove what it shows. Meowy 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The AGBU recently launched a collection of genocide-era photographs (with captions) on Flickr. I wonder if they are free to use. They can be seen at the following URL: http://flickr.com/photos/agbu Hakob (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be possible - they have "© All rights reserved" under the photos. Also, most of their captions suffer from the same lack of detail. Meowy 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

I cannot belive.

My resources have been deleted!! What kind of invisible hand is over the suposed neutrality of wikipedia?

I wonder what time is going this comment to be undeleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.78.207 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This Article is more holy than Mount Ararat. You can't touch it, unless you are a sacred Armenian. If their ancestors would be nearly as couraged as they are now, they would not need to protect wiki-pages 24/7, because they would have something to be proud of, not only something they could look for mercy with. 80.136.5.206 (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Habeeb it

Your resources have been appropriated as delicious by the hands of the unseeable wiki cabal.

The time shall be ni when the great undeletions shall be betrothed to the talkpages of your homestead. The Myotis (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And verily, on that momentous day such masses of swineish ungulates shall fly across the sky that they will block out the sun, and all wikipedia editors will bow down, fervantly worship, and never delete on pain of eternal damnation, the almighty resources of Spanish youtube videos. Meowy 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking?

I cannot understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.78.207 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified videos posted on the Spanish version (or any version) of Youtube are not "resources", and simply posting urls to them isn't contributing to improving the content of this article. 81.79.99.35 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe to be neutral on this sensitive subject, there has to be a

massage.

Thank you.

Looks like you are missing a noun there. Also, how does a massage have a point of view? The Myotis (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should put a neutrality tag under these conditions. Take, for example, the famous "Hitler quote" having a section of its own, being presented as if it is an important historical event, althogh there is no evidence of its authenticity. Regards, Filanca (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any factually inaccurate statements in that section? The quote is certainly notable and often mentioned in the context of the subject of this article. And the section does not rest on the quote alone, but also on other references, which (as far as I see) are not the subject of debate. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hitler quote is highly controversial, it is not proven to be historical, there is a good possiblity that it is a forgery. Yet it is being presented in the article as if it is proven to be words Hitler. This may be in order to form a link between the holocaust and Armenian genocide. But it certainly is not a neutral stance. As for the third quote, I see no direct relation between it and the Armenian Genocide. Hitler there is most probably comparing the might of the Persian Empire with the political situation of Armenia at his time (being a part of Soviet Union) and attributing that difference to their tolerance towards Jews. That leaves the second quote -- it may be related to the Armenian Genocide, but the quotation does not seem to be complete. I am not opposed to see that one in the page, but we will hardly need a section for it. Filanca (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the entire section on the Hitler quote - at most have a link to a separate article. It has nothing directly to do with the Armenian genocide and is a distraction. There probably won't be much opposition to its removal - the editor that argued most for its retention in the article seems to be gone from Wikipeda. Meowy 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll repost what I said in a previous post here about the Hitler quote. "Influence of the Armenian Genocide on Adolf Hitler" – I can see no point in having this section. In what way did Adolf Hitler's knowledge of the Armenian Genocide influence his actions? And why should such actions, if they did exist, have any relevance to this article about the Armenian Genocide? If they did exist, then they should be detailed in an entry for Hitler, or for WW2! Unless someone can indicate a source which says that Hitler embarked on such-and-such a policy largely or solely because of lessons he learned or opinions he held as a result of the Armenian Genocide then mention of that alleged statement would appear to be off-topic here. But it could be mentioned in the denial of the Armenian Genocide article because material aimed at discrediting the alleged statement can be found in some of the works produced with the aim of denying the fact of the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support its removal. I can't believe it has its own section within the article. Hakob (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed if it hasn't already. I don't think it's right to argue that Hitler only planned the Holocaust because of the massacre of Armenians considering the quote is verified by numerous scholars as unverifiable. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of categories

Reverted banned user's removal of categories. VartanM (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again a removal of cat's! surely we cant delete any cat's just cuz we have the same cat's in a different place. I see no any logics. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (

Categories

The broader categories were moved from this article to the larger Category:Armenian Genocide. Now the entire category is part of these category trees, and the individual articles should not be, because these categories get {{catdiffuse}} tagged. WP:Categories. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, its not right. Compare f.e. with Holocaust article. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic's current attitude

Consider the part below:

In 2005 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan invited Turkish, Armenian and international historians to form a commission to reevaluate the events of 1915 by using archives in Turkey, Armenia and other countries.[126] Armenian president Robert Kocharian responded, "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."[127] The Turkish government continues to protest the formal recognition of the genocide by other countries, and to dispute that there ever was a genocide.

Kocharian's "response" is in fact a rejection of Turkish proposal in a very political way. On the other hand, the last sentence is in odds with the first one. In fact, it is the Armenian goverment which is refusing to dispute that there was a genocide or not. Therefore, I suggest removal of the last sentence and rephrasing the second one by underlining the refusal of Turkish proposal. Regards, Filanca (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

The formality of the language of this arguement suggests subjectivity in several parts (both on Turkish and Armenians sides). This article should go through a clean up. Also, I was trying to get some reference for my paper on the genocide, but I didn't see anything about ASALA and bunch of other related subjects (ASALA is a big one, I'm surprised it is not included), but I think for the sake of objectivity there should at least be a "See Also" link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.67.16 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ASALA is more modern days regarding the Armenian Genocide. But I think it is necessary to partily mention them, or add a see also section. --HyeTashnak (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mislabeled movies in documentaries section?

Hi, just a little suggestion for the documentary films sections, how about we split this up into documentaries and movie category (pick another word for movie, my English isn't that great, I would have said "feature film" but that sounds so entertainment-ish)? Because as it is right now, it is confusing, since at least Ararat and La Masseria Delle Allodole are not documentaries, but scripted movies with playing characters which are not (primarily) intended to be educational sources (I think); of course they might serve as a source of information, but as it is right now, those seem to be mislabeled as documentaries. Any thoughts? I could be mistaken, in that case, sorry, just thought I'd throw in the thought. Greetings Cityraven (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite odd that they would put it under "Documentary Films", perhaps the whole section should be renamed as "Films"? Or maybe a different section for "Movies" to differentiate between the two. If you have the time, please feel free to work on that, thanks. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, so I just looked around a bit and found out that indeed all of the listed movies are documentary films with the exception of Ararat and La Masseria Delle Allodole. I can't edit the page as my account is rather fresh, so my suggestion would be that one of you guys add a new section "movies" after the documentary section and put those two titles there. greetings Cityraven (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Introduction

Who was responsible for the genocide? Everybody know that jews and christains live in peace throughout Ottoman History and were free to practice their religion. So saying that Armenian genocide is something that Ottoman empire carried out is intentional over simplicity. It is established that it's responsibility has to be taken by political party in power and that was young Turks. After the Young Turks revolution revolution in 1908 that actual power was not in the hands of ottomans but in the leaders of Young Turks. This young Turk revolution was carried out by leaders mostly jews, Donemah of Salonika or socialist leaders. And this is not a hidden fact these days that the hidden power behind young Turks was actualy Free masonry. Mustafa Kamal Ata Turk himself was a donemah and a Free Mason. Donemah is a religous sect that is racially jew and apparently Muslim. They never inter married with Muslims and thier social circle was always governed by jews. In 1994 an israeli newspaper claimed that Mustafa Kamal Ata Turk was a jew.

www.armeniangenocide.genocidefaq.org and Armenian Massacre entry in Brittanica.

The former web site belongs to armenian genocide institute. Also see young Turk revolution entries in wikipedia.

I hope these authentic references will erase u people's intentional misunderstanding of blaming Ottoman Empire who strictly practiced Religous freedom throughout it;s reign.

Tazeen Hasan Refernces: Brittanica Wikepedia artile Young Turks Armeniangenocide.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazeenhasan (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tazeenhasan (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Source Anarchronism: Contemporary quote about a "pro-Russian fifth column"

In the first paragraph of the "Contemporaneous reports and reactions" section there is a quote from an Ottoman official explaining that they were "retaliating against a pro-Russian fifth column."

The full sentence as it appears in the article is as follows:

Many foreign officials offered to intervene on behalf of the Armenians, including Pope Benedict XV, only to be turned away by Ottoman government officials who claimed they were "retaliating against a pro-Russian fifth column."[56]

The concept and meaning of a "fifth column" did not exist in 1915. The term originated in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War by Emilio Mola, a Nationalist General, in reference to the four columns of his forces besieging Madrid being aided by a "fifth column" of Nationalist supporters inside the city, undermining the Republicans from within. See the Wikipedia article Fifth Column.

It is impossible for a quote to have a reference to a "fifth column" from an Ottoman official or indeed anybody in 1915 during the Armenian Genocide because the term was not coined until 1936.

If it is an indirect quote or a creative translation it should not place an anachronism into the mouth of a contemporary first hand source. It should either be an honest translation of a real quote from a real Ottoman official, reflecting contemporary language, or rewritten as a second hand source or analysis of the general Ottoman view, in contemporary language. I'd suggest the appropriate word would be "traitors" or "insurrection".

Or the quote could be scrapped altogether. It may be that the source is intellectually dishonest if, as the article currently suggests, it claims that an Ottoman official really did use the words "fifth column" in 1915. By this understanding it is not a reliable source and should not be used in the article.

The listed source is:

Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press, 2006 p. 177 ISBN 1-5942-0100-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.52.11 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The way it is written is not valid - the wording makes it appear that the ottoman official is actually using the phrase "5th column", which would not be historically possible. It is probably Ferguson who is using the phrase to sum up Ottoman attitudes: if so there is no need to use quotes, or quote in such a verbatim way his opinion. Meowy 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Genocide" is not generally recognized by historians

The use of "genocide" to describe the undoubted murder of many many Armenians, both directly and indirectly, is not accepted by most neutral historians. Neutrals tend to agree that the defining characteristics of genocide : centralised planning and organization, planned outcome of extermination, consistent application : is lacking in this case. This does not make the Turkish treatment of Armenians any less disgraceful. It means that neutral historians do not agree that it was deliberately planned and orchestrated the way e.g. the Jewish Holocaust or the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda was planned - it was far more spontaneous. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue personal campaigns to change public perceptions, which is what updaters of this article appear to be using it for. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are telling us that all the sources cited within the article indicating systematic planning are fabrications, and all the historians cited, including the scholars of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, are radicals? Or are you telling us you didn't read the article and do not really know where the debate lies? The Myotis (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The former. Your sources need to be neutrals, be professionally trained and employed as historians, who have not devoted their lives to proving the theory they are writing about. The article would be failed by any university history marker if it was presented as an attempt to demonstrate that there was in fact a Genocide. If it was presented as a review of pro-genocide theory literature it may get a pass mark. I can't be bothered going on. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So you came here to throw around accusations and state your opinion but you "can't be bothered" to cite a single source, neutral and academic or otherwise, to back it up? The Myotis (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rcbutcher, act on your own advice: "Wikipedia is not the place to pursue personal campaigns". Meowy 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting recent source which discusses the matter. I hope it may prove useful in improving the article. --John (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Genocide or Multicide?

Although I have no doubt that all the information is indeed correct, I do have an issue with the terminology "Genocide" used in this instance. The holocaust and Porajmos is known as the first "clear" example of a Genocide, but such is not defined by numbers of deaths that exceed one million, neither by the existance of concentration camps, nor even by gassing or similar methods of systematic extermination. Genocide consists of a systematic extermination of an entire race of nation, worldwide rather than in a specific part of the world. I would by satisfied with the saying, that I usually state while giving a definition of the holocaust's essence, that "although previous instances of mass-slaughter that can be titled as "Genocide" precided the holocaust and Porajmos, none illustrates the essence of Genocide as clearly as the sorts of Genocide that accured during WWII". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.224.2 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Could you specify what changes, exactly, you propose making to the article?? The Myotis (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that actually calling these event "genocide" relativizes the Holocaust, which should be taken as the "model" genocide. If we consider that Armenians in Western Turkey were nearly untouched (can we say that Jews in Hamburg and Munich were untouched?), if we consider that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaks) allied with the enemy during the war in order to crate a independent state on turkish territory (Did Jews allied with Russians to harm Germany and to create a state?), if we assume that there was a famine in Turkey (unlike in Germany 1940s), if we consider that Armenians died during forced relocations (and not in death camps), we see that this Article relativizes the Holocaust. Mutual Genocide is the right word, for those who can actually work up their own history calmly. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.86.91 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust uniqueness has been demonstrated time and again to be unfounded and in most cases chauvinist. I recommend you read "Uniqueness as Denial," by David Stannard, found on Pg. 245 in the book Is the Holocaust Unique? edited by Israel Charney. This link might help, http://books.google.com/books?id=dz0XwOLss84C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=uniqueness+denial+stannard&source=web&ots=blvyfIx0S_&sig=uQMGGM8t4WJrrHJZlsP71FWNyYk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. E10ddie (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that when the term 'Genocide' was coined by Raphael Lemkin, the Aghat was indeed used as an example, so it really is part of the "model" as much as the Shoah and Porajmos, and to exclude it would be more of a subversion than anything. As for "Armenians Western Turkey were nearly untouched", "allied with the enemy during the war in order to crate a independent state on turkish territory ", etc, I think we all know how much fabrication was involved in making both of those claims. The Myotis (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Still not neutral

"The Duke of Argyll called the Ottoman government ". . . a Government incurably barbarous and corrupt." without further comments, this one rather looks like Wikipedia's opinion on the Ottoman government, which constitutes an NPOV violation. If this quote is related to the article, the relationship should be clearly stated. Filanca (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a person and so can't have an opinion. The Duke of Argyll was a person and so did have opinions. The questions are, which Duke of Argyll and when was the quote said? The book is from 1918, but it is being cited in a section dealing with the pre-war period. Meowy 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference listed also mentions in the same book, Our Responsibilities for Turkey, by George Douglas Campbell(1823-1900), 8th Duke of Argyll. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't negative perceptions of the Armenians quoted in this article? They're strangely absent, which is strange, because many people claim that the Armenians actually instigated the Ottoman-Armenian violence.

What an odd ommission!

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong on this, but I do not think Wikipedia encourages the publication of conspiracy-derived or otherwise radical views that promote ethnic or racial stereotypes. "Many people" also claim the US goverment is ruled by a Jewish Illuminati and that Alien Reptiles make up the Western ruling elite. The most we can do is acknowledge that they exists, but we cannot give them any credence. The Myotis (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't include ethnic stereotypes -- in fact, they shouldn't use racists as sources for information about countries ruled by an ethnic group they hate. That's a pretty good reason that many of the sources this article cites, or indirectly cites through secondary sources, are completely trash. Turcophobia was rampant. Dashnak wanted to get the Western governments to hate the Turks, and they worked this angle through the media.

That's a fact you can check on. Violence between Muslims and Armenians did not occur until the late 1800's, after Armenian terrorist groups (Dashnak and Hunchak) had begun using violent tactics. That fact is strangely absent! And, unlike the quote from this Duke about the Ottoman government, you can find non-racist sources for the claim. Strangely absent! No mention of the beginning of the violence.

No mention of the large scale pre-War activities of the Armenian terrorists, moving guns into Anatolia, arming villagers, inciting violence by attacking Kurds, etc.

I've personally held a book written by a Westerner, open in his bias against Turks, who explicitly stated that the Armenians are causing violence in Anatolia. Instead, you show pictures of NY Times newspaper articles that are propaganda. Christian-to-Christian propaganda. Toynbee even admitted he was producing propaganda and that much of it -- regarding the Turks -- had been false!!!! There are reports from Anatolia which are falsified propaganda against the Turks which directly contradict the reports of Christian aid workers. None of this is included. These are all sources which reflect badly on the character of the Armenian terrorist/nationalist groups which engaged in war against the Ottoman government and sided with Russia in the process.

This is the type of source which is missing from this article. That is not racist. What is present in the article is a constant use of secondary sources which refer to racist propaganda against the Turks, as well as primary sources which are the same.

Strange omission, huh?

Yeah, you're right about the phrase "most people" -- it isn't clear. I wasn't referring to lunatics. I was referring to many intelligent, fair-minded people.

You need to include dissenting views that are held by scholars, professors, etc. These aren't people preaching about the Jewish Illuminati or lizard people (which is hilarious, btw).

Their positions are well-reasoned and thoughtful. They have citations to support their claims. It is only fair that a small amount of the article be dedicated to a non-biased presentation of their views. The term "denialist", e.g., is unacceptable, especially because they (the people I have in mind) are supportive of the killing of at least .5 million Armenians in a barbaric and hideous way!

Despite recognizing the deaths, they dissent over the characterization of the deaths as genocide, and it is more than a matter of semantics. (Although semantics are quite important, too, in this debate.) They point to the actions of the Armenians against Turks, which is certainly relevant. They point to the siding with Russia, which is the heart of the matter.

It is a minority view. But it is not a lunatic fringe view. It deserves a section, and the section should be carefully free of bias in presentation. You should allow your sources to "do the talking". Show the view of Lewis and others *with quotes*. Show the responses of your scholars, preferably with quotes. This avoids bias, and gives "fair" (Wiki fair) time to each side.

The article currently implies that there are no real scholars who dissent. This is unacceptable -- such a notion is false, and that's what people who read this are thinking. (I'm sure some of you are happy about that. But don't you want people who choose to refer to it as a genocide to understand the whole debate? Don't you want them to be educated? Don't you think that understanding the objections of those who dissent will help them solidify their views as the majority? That shouldn't matter, anyhow, because the point is the sources are from legitimate scholars, and they are held by at least a 100 million people on this planet, as well as a large number of scholars. That you disagree doesn't make them illegitimate. They should be given a fair presentation in a small section, void of bias and the term denialist, with the "answer" to their claims coming straight from majority scholars rather than Wikipedians.)

It is key that when you give this small piece of real estate on the page to the dissenting view you use quotes to present the dissent and the direct response to the dissent. A weaselly section, which was present in the past in this article, is very transparently biased and, of course, does nothing to further the educational value of the article.

Such a section would greatly redeem the article as a whole, and, hopefully, set the tone for higher quality and less biased work on the article in the future, work which would do three things, first, make clear the racism and bias which plague Western sources about events within an empire which they were waging war against by contrasting them with records taken by neutral observers, and, second, make the context of Armenian armed rebellion and Turkish deaths which preceded the deportations and the first massacres crystal clear, and third, make the large scale killing of Turkish civilians by Armenians and Russians clear.

All of this is necessary to understand the deaths of the Armenians, whether or not you call them genocide, and whether or not you believe the government planned it.

A small section with a brief summary of the dissenting views, with direct quotations doing the bulk of the work of both expressing and providing a rebuttal to the dissent, will be a great improvement to this site by providing at least minimal insight into the larger context and the problem of bias as it relates to this issue.

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Solid evidence of a heavily biased article

Under the picture of Talat Pasha following lines are written:

"Grand Vizier Talat Pasha who was assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian for his crimes"

For example could we also say "...and 1 million Armenians were the subject of the genocide because of their crimes against Ottoman Empire"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrearin (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence is about as solid as springwater, I'm afraid. He was assassinated, I don't think anybody could argue that is not the case. And it is well-established that his assassin was motivated to kill Talat by the role Talat played in organizing the massacres (which was considerable). Unless you are, of course, suggesting we should not be calling genocide a crime...? The Myotis (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If your (or any other contributors') real aim is to protect NPOV in this article, you shouldn't glorify murder/assassination by justifying it with the words "for his crimes". By your reasoning, rebellion/attacks on civilians is a crime too and some other contributor would justify the genocide on those grounds. I suggest changing the statement to "Grand Vizier Talat Pasha who was assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian for his role in organizing the genocide". Assassins are murderers, not heroes.Emrearin (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly don't object to such a minor reword, I think I should point out that an Assassin is, in fact, an Assassin, and whether he is a murderer, hero or executioner is little more than personal perception. Now, did you actually see any "heavy" bias or was that simply hyperbole? The Myotis (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is now gone, I have removed it. There was no nead for it: the text already told in a clear enough way why Talat was assasinated. Meowy 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he was assassinated because Armenians got it into their heads that the violence they received was somehow an unusual or unfair response to the rebellion. Watch Bernard Lewis shoot down all these claims of "genocide" -- because, make no mistake, you are all using the term "genocide" as equivalent to "*the* Holocaust" -- [19]. If you ever want to make an accurate article -- let alone fair -- people could really gain some insight into the problem of the mass killings the Armenians endured, as well as those that the Turks endured during the same period at the hands of the Russians, and at the hands of the Armenians during the "massive armed rebellion" they engaged in. (Massive was the word Lewis chose. Your article gives no indication that ANY armed rebellion even preceded the rebellion!!!!

Let's not forget the fact that NOT A SINGLE ORDER was ever found from the government, including Talat, to kill Armenians. The only such evidence was falsified -- i.e. forged -- by an Armenian! All genuine scholars, regardless of their opinion on the use of the term genocide with regard to what happened to the Armenians, agree on this. You're taking the real suffering of your ancestors and turning it into a fairy tale, a falsehood, and all who choose to investigate, as I did, find the fairy tale extremely transparent. Armenian violence engendered an Ottoman response -- deportation. If you're claiming a genocide occurred, and that a genocide requires government planning, you have no legs to stand on. As Lewis says, you have NO evidence (non-falsified evidence) of the government ordering killings -- and much evidence to the contrary!!! How can you state otherwise in this article, in good faith? You all need to look harder, much harder. At least include quotes of those who disagree about your characterization. An answer as succinct and powerful as the one given by Lewis in the video above should certainly be quoted in this article. He is certainly not interested in propaganda, and he is certainly an eminently qualified individual; the fact that he contradicts the broad claims in this article, and the narrative you present -- completely -- makes his views important to the subject, and they are worthy of inclusion.

Does anyone have any evidence of "his crimes", since you claim that the reason "why Talat was assassinated" is "told in a clear enough way"? What is your evidence of his intent to cause mass killings of Armenians. (I'm sure he meant to kill those Armenians who took up arms against his government (and sided with the Russians) -- that's called war. I'm referring to any evidence that he ordered killings of civilains. (The evidence I refer to would have to *not* be falsified, just to be clear.)

Best of luck making Wikipedia accurate and complete, if that's your goal. (I really hope that's your goal... this is a pathetic way to further the goals of revenge your assassin -- who you appear to have been aggrandizing -- held dear. It works about as well as joining the Russians worked.)

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, generally extermination is not considered a valid response to 'rebellion', particularly when evidence of said rebellion is quite elusive. Bernard Lewis is considered a ahistorical quack for a reason (see his biography) though even if he was considered mainstream or reliable, his opinion alone does not negate all the other historians who make up the majority POV currently represented. I also beleive, if I remember correctly, Mr. Akcam found orders, both direct and indirect, detailing directive Ottoman soldiers to kill civilian exiles. Also, it should be noted that claiming evidence is falsified does not make it falsified. Unless subsequent evidence directly indicates that the 'great evil Armenian conspiracy' forged the documents, it just indicates a unwillingness to accept established facts. If you want to hear more about Talat's crimes, I suggest you read his bio page. Unless you beleive all the information used in writing that article is forged as well. The Myotis (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deportation was the response. Lots of starving people, lots of massacred people was the result. The government didn't order the deaths of those people. Throwing the word "extermination" out doesn't change anything. Tons of Turks died in Greece, Bulgaria, and in Anatolia at the hands of the Armenians and Russians.

Second, Are you really going to pretend to be unaware of the forgeries created by Armenians?

Third, Bernard Lewis is certainly not considered a quack... In Armenian circles, no doubt he is, but among people with a real interest in the Islamic world, Bernard Lewis is certainly not considered a quack.

His high profile in the world of history, as well as his position, make it absolutely essential that you include *his* words -- without a lot of analysis surrounding it which purports to show "conclusively" his incorrectness.

You're really sticking your head in a hole with this one. It's known -- absolutely known -- that much propaganda was produced during the war years against Turkey, and that much of the coverage of the deaths of Armenians are propaganda, or extremely biased.

I feel bad for you, it's unfortunate to make a lie -- actually, it's just a great distortion, and an avoidance of clear, defined claims -- one of the centerpieces of your life, so don't attack me, or use hyperbole in your response. I don't bear you malice. I hate your mistaken views.

That you say "claiming evidence is falsified doesn't make it falsified" demonstrates to me that you have no real response. You have no unbiased scholar to point to who would support the idea that those documents weren't falsified. I'd love a real response, i.e. a worthwhile citation.

Bernard Lewis says he'll call it a genocide if you're willing to accept a definition of genocide which could encompass such widely disparate events as the Holocaust and the deaths of the Armenians. (It would also, then, encompass the deaths of Turks at the hands of several ethnic groups -- particularly Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, and Russians -- as genocide.) I'm also willing to call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, just as Bernard Lewis is, *as long as there is an explicit understanding that the word genocide will no longer mean -- as it does to most people -- that something comparable to the Holocaust, in which a government set out to eliminate a people because of their race, occurred.* Instead it will only mean that a lot of people of one group died, regardless of if they (as a people) were involved in armed conflict or not.

The word genocide will then encompass all the massacres of civilians that have occurred during all of the significant wars on this planet. You'll be recognizing the genocide of the Turks by Greeks [20], the genocide of the Turks by the Bulgarians [21] (notice the line "Some 260,000 Muslims perished in the war's carnage" with two legitimate citations), and the genocide of Turks by the Russians and Armenians. (Everyone is already familiar with the literature on that, probably, but are choosing to look at it in a very strange way.)

I prefer to call deaths of civilains during wars part of the horrible nature of war, and reserve the word genocide for the Holocaust, Darfur, etc.

If you wish to use it differently, you should make the distinction clear. You should make it clear -- as Lewis said -- that there is no solid evidence of any kind that the Ottoman government ordered killings, and there is evidence to the contrary.

Inserting a long quote of Lewis's reply would suffice for this purpose. A few more scholars should be mentioned. Your opinion of them should not be weaseled into that section of the article. You should quote the responses of your scholars to such claims to be sure to avoid that sort of bias... At that point the article will be acceptable, according to wikipedia's own standards, even if it remains misleading. (The standards aren't perfect -- as we know, the majority isn't always correct, and the majority view gets majority representation, so...)

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A comprehensive evaluation of the 'dissenting viewpoints' does exist, see Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Feel free to stick your sacred Lewis quote there. Now, picking out some of details from that rather TLDR above: Sources. The New York Times was and still is considered one of the most accurate news publications in existence (have you, by any chance, ever read an issue?), instead of a conveniently unnamed westerner who you claim is biased against Muslims but still likes to blame Armenians. Accusing authors of being racist and sources of being forged is completely pointless unless you provide proof, or at the very least, specify what you are talking about. And yes, many of those who deny the Aghat was genocide could be considered 'lunatics' in your words, if not quite as radical as the ones listed above, assuming they have in fact seen the available evidence, and are not just playing politics. The whole 'blame the victim' excuse has been seen before many times, and every time it has been discounted as just that.

Summary: Show a specific source used in the article and demonstrate (with better sources) a specific problem with it. Rant all you want, opinion alone changes nothing. The Myotis (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in even talking to that ranting anon. It's all off-topic for this talk page. Meowy 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you honestly going to pretend that anti-Turkish sentiment didn't pervade Western newspaper articles? That it didn't affect them?

Even if you're not aware of a particular case of this bias, doesn't it seem plausible, or even extremely likely?

I've taken advanced undergraduate history courses, and these questions are the constant refrain of academic historians.

You need to be much more wary. Racism against Turks was a reality (and among many Armenians and not a few Europeans it continues today). These are sources you need to be very wary of. My professors certainly would have been!!!! The famed British propagandist, whom your secondary sources cite, admitted that many of his claims were falsified!!!!! The NY Times was working off of this same propaganda -- reports that came to Westerners from Armenians in the West, and were often further exaggerated by the Europeans. Accounts of real massacres of Armenians thereby got distorted, and completely untrue events were also relayed as fact.

Even more importantly, for those who will fail to understand the context for the suffering of Armenians, stories of massacres of Turks never got relayed to the West.

If you can't see this history in the right way, I suggest opening your eyes!!!! The sources of bias are right in front of you! Now, you can cite a source, but you can't cite its claims as fact. "According to..." -- some note of the likelihood of bias should also be included in such an article about historical matters which are being documented with questionable sources, e.g. any Western newspaper when the subject is conflict between Muslims and Christians.

To respond to what you've said about lunatics and blaming the victim, let me be clear about one thing: I don't "blame the Armenians" (the civilians) for the great death toll they suffered. I don't blame the Turks (the civilians) for the deaths they suffered at the hands of Armenians, Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians. I just want this article, and all articles on the subject, to be clear on 3 things: 1) that the Armenians' use of violence preceded all massacres of Armenians by Turks 2) a massive armed rebellion on the part of the Armenians was the reason for the deportation of the Armenians 3) there is no solid evidence of orders given by the Ottoman government to massacre Armenians and there is very solid evidence (like Lewis said so concisely) that the Ottoman government ordered the protection of Armenian deportees.

That's all. The people died, no one denies that. The conclusion that people like me and Lewis come to, after careful consideration of the evidence, is not a political decision!

Think about it: after all I've said, the fact remains that these people are dead, and it's a tragedy. (Probably closer to 0.5 million that 1 million, given the number of survivors and the pre-war numbers, but it doesn't make the events any less horrifying.) I emphasize this every time I speak of it to anyone. All I want from the Armenians (and everyone else) is recognition the simple facts of the matter, and of the fact that a wider tragedy occurred, and Turks as well as Armenians suffered greatly AND caused suffering to each other.

I do appreciate your (ostensibly genuine) willingness to listen to particular complaints against the article and to give a fair hearing to suggestions for changes. I'll be testing how willing you are to make these changes in the future.

I almost forgot: you must recognize that a separate page for "denial of the genocide" is by no means sufficient.

The fact that eminent scholars disagree with the analysis and the overriding tone of this page makes it HUGELY important that a (small) section, which gives fair hearing to those dissenting voices, be included. They aren't lunatics, they are genuine scholars, one is a superstar in the world of history, and their analyses make good sense. They need to be included on the main page!!!!. That would be like a discussion of black holes being done, and no note being given to a dissenting view held by Stephen Hawkins and a minority of other physicists!

The only reason I could think of anyone wanting to silence those dissenting voices is political. Of course, the Treaty of Sevres is a dream, a document which is purely historical. Turkey holds 70 million souls, and Armenia holds just a tiny fraction. Turkey is part of NATO. Even if the political aspirations of the Armenian terrorist groups like Dashnak were morally or legally tenable, or fair, they would still be abortive. It's just not happening.

It's best to dedicate oneself to telling the truth, especially when telling lies won't even get you anywhere.

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the only recognizable point from above, there is no precedent for giving a radical or minority view significant discussion on the main page. None of the other articles on war crimes and genocides do it, as far as I know, and the fact we give it its own subsection alone is more than enough. And yes, Meowy, I realize that, but sometimes that lack of content needs to be pointed out, if only to serve as a reminder to others. The Myotis (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR

I'd like to remind everyone that this article is under 1 revert per week restriction. See the very top of this talkpage for more information. VartanM (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Newspaper as Proof?

Around the centre of the page, there is a newspapaer article stating that 1 million Armenians were either killed or in exile. This cannot be true, however as the death toll is though to be around million and these one million cannot have been killed withing one year of the genocide's 'beginning'. It just doesn't make sense. This article is either propaganda or just mis-taken. Either way, it needs to be taken down. rokkafellah (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are either mistaken, or producing propaganda. Either way, your recent editing history on this article would seem to deserve a ban longer than 24 hours. The picture is in the "Contemporaneous reports and reactions" section, where it should be: The article is a contemporaneous report. BTW, here is a slightly earlier New York Times report [[22]] giving the deaths as 800,000. Meowy 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just doing my duty for the Wikipedian Community, Meowy. rokkafellah (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And I noticed that the Wikipedian Community has done its duty and blocked you for life. Meowy 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Meowy, they blocked Rokkafellah!Rokka Yusuf (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Newspapers paint a totally different picture

These newspaper articles report the events totally different than this article. check out the dates carefully!!! These clearly show that event at Van started way before april 1915 and were started by the Armenian assistance to the invading army.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.52.160 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So it seems no one has a word to say about these documents. then I will start changing the article, primarily by adding the massive Armenian uprising which was before the start of deportations and Van events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.43.47 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is always worth remembering that "journalism" is one of the most contemptable of professions and is practiced mostly by individuals with little or no morals (and even less intelligence), and that the profession reveals its lowest standards during wartime situations. Meowy 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don`t see the relevance of your comment. 20.000 in uprising in Feitun, Armenians in all occupied cities are aiding the Russian army, They resist conscription and mobilisation effords in war time, Armenians from USA are getting ready for a war with Turkey for their "counties" independace! All happening in 1914 before the start of deportations or the jailing of Armenian notables (Dashnaks). These should be in the article to give proper information about the development of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.24.32 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "Feitun" - you just said it all. That is one of the many place-name miss-spellings on those reports, all of which are from minor newspapers. Their overall similarity, and their misspellings, indicate that they are all derived from the same source, probably a badly translated Russian. And note that several of the reports define what they are reporting as a "rumour". However, none of those reports are of any importance here. Military history is understood through history textbooks, not news reports. For example, all the Neocon news reports in the world won't lead to proper books about the Iraq war making the claim that Iraq actually had hidden weapons of mass destruction. Meowy 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So Washington post and Newyork times are minor newspapers. ok. Feitun = Zeitun. These newspapers clearly document the Armenian uprising and assistance to the enemy army. which are in line with Turkish and Russian army reports as well as Armenian and Turkish eyewithness testimonies. You say "Military history is understood through history textbooks, not news reports". Then remove the newspaper clip in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.62 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, the news report headline is in the article because it illustrates a contemoporaneous press report about the Armenian Genocide: it is showing that the event was widely reported in foreign media as it was happening. And (if it was you) stop placing long lists of url's in this talk page. I have removed them. Meowy 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using a fake picture

and even worse tag it as "from USA archives". A simple question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.28.80 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article organisation

IF i can make a suggestion as someone who can look upon this disinterestdly, this article needs to be more than a long timeline of events. I came here looking to read about the causes of this event, and after scanning the article I don't see any way to learn what I'd like to know without reading the entire thing, which is quite long. I don't think it is bad that there is a wealth of information, but when the information I was looking for can only be found by reading a large amount of text unrelated, it hurts the usefulness of what everyone is doing here.

I know most people here have deep emotional investment in their understanding of this, but hopefully everyone can agree on a better structure. Merely arguing about each event doesn't improve the article.

I think there needs to be some step back from individual historical events, and more of a meta level description of what occurred.

Thanks.

Oyo (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reminds me of what I wrote in a previous comment, here [[23]] It seems to me that we have lost sight of what the actual function of the article should be – its function should be to inform an uninformed reader about the Armenian Genocide in an encyclopaedic way. However, seeing the problem, or agreeing with someone who has seen the problem, doesn't actually solve the problem! Meowy 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's Re-Write the Article for Both Views on the Subject

Why not? Rokka Yusuf (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The view of the article...

The article looks like one-sided.while I was reading it, I felt as if the (So called) Armenian genocide was real... It has the view of the Armenians', this site needs to be more neutral.

78.164.155.168 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this, a barrage of an ultra-nationalist group of Turks hurling some (non-sensical) arguments on the Armenian Genocide talk page in unison? The world can see that your IP addresses all originate from Turkey. So better luck next time! The Armenian Genocide will not be denied on Wikipedia! Serouj (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the simple fact that he is Turkish make his history or testimony 'wrong.' I think not Serouj. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

United States denial of Armenian Holocaust

There should be mention that a large number of Americans, including the (contemporary) American government, believe the Armenian genocide did not occur (simply see the above comment for an example), or, to put it as it is on the Holocaust denial article, "did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." --72.39.35.178 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is known about what the current American government really thinks, only what actions they (for whatever reason) take or not take. They certainly did not claim the genocide did not occur, but rather they refuse to take a stand in this issue. Perhaps they just need to keep Turkey as an ally. Mahjongg (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Documentary Films (or could be "External Link")

PBS FRONTLINE/World has published a compelling documentary video on this subject to their website entitled "Turkey: A Family Erased" wherein filmmaker George Kachadorian tells his family's personal story of the genocide.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2008/11/turkey_a_family.html

FRONTLINE/World has a reputation for international reporting with integrity and this story is available for those interested to watch online, for free, anytime. It would be a valuable addition to "external links" section or the list of documentary films.

I request that a authorized/registered author for this page please add the link to the video the this page where appropriate. Thank you.

Planetstories (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put personal propaganda on this disscussion page. This is Wikipedia. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! What part of Planetstories's suggestion do you think is "personal propaganda"? Serouj (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is there to make suggestions to improve the article, I think that Planetstories did just that. Mahjongg (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS is a private organization, not a neutral scource. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Except for its obvious american-centeredness, I see nothing in the programming of this television organisation (Public Broadcasting Service) that prohibits them from having a neutral point of view regarding this subject, or do you claim -all- americans an non-neutral in this regard? Mahjongg (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS is a publically funded and produced broadcasting company and any person with money can give money in a donation to the PBS. This person can request a show or program or even ask PBS to show his own program. If his/her donation was big enough, who are PBS to refuse them a request. Therefore, PBS is not neutral programing. Also, in respect for each other, can you not speak in a sarcastic way? It really just complicates matters and on the Internet it can be very hard to understand... have a good day. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenian "Genocide"?

Can anyone point me to the last substantial discussion about the usage of the term "Genocide" on this article? It seems to be an anachronism that this term should be used when "The Great Calamity" (used by Armenian folks themselves) is what it has been commonly known as for some time. Thanks, 76.79.136.186 (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you do not understand what an anachronism is, where is the "error in chronology" here?. Mahjongg (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the term "Genocide" wasn't legally adopted until the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, Մեծ Եղեռն (The Great Calamity/Crime) happened in 1915. The usage of the term "genocide" to describe events that occurred decades prior to the existence of the word is anachronistic. 76.79.136.186 (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because the word had not been coined does not mean that the events that took place did not constitute a genocide. Similar examples can be seen in a variety of fields: the term "Byzantine Empire" was adopted 4 centuries after the Fall of Constantinople to describe the medieval "Empire of the Greeks" and is almost solely used today; the simple terms state and kingdom also had a somewhat different meaning in the past, but are today extensively used to describe former countries. Nothing forbids a word to be created and used to describe past events. IMO this is the weakest excuse for the denial of the Armenian Genocide... Hectorian (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's always a pity when people use terminology to try to shut down legitimate discussion. In this case , "denial of Armenian Genocide", this is roughly equivalent to what Islamists do when relying upon the word "Islamophobia" to label folks who legitimately speak critically about Islam or the terminology "New antisemitism" relative to folks legitimately speaking critically of Israel. Have you nothing more to offer than to resort to such manipulative wording? 76.79.136.186 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons with Islamophobia and New antisemitism are just beyond me... Hectorian (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What the user with the IP Code has said is very smart and is quite interesting. What he/she is saying is that it really is about what your view is on the subject. Building on his/her example, people who critisize Israel might be called 'anti-semitist', but what they may actually be doing is critisizing Israel. Which is two different things.

'Denial of the Armenian Genocide' is the Armenian Genocide supporters' way of not forcing the issue and not accepting any disscussion or research. In addition, people who are questioning or disscussing the Armenian Genocide may actually be undecided people trying to see the evidence behind it. But, they are automatically labeled as 'Denialists'. Rokka Yusuf (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead Child or Sleeping Child?

There is a photo of woman kneeling next to a child. The description was added stating that the child is dead, but the child appears to be sleeping. If the child was dead, then the woman would be crying and also her sister would be in distress. SEE PHOTO The description states that this was a common scene; if this was a common scene in Syria, then we should have more similar photos. Where are they? Bosniak (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is by Near East Relief and the description is the same one taken from the Library of Congress page for this picture.Serouj (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT (fixed link) Serouj (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

hhahahaha,i am from turkey this armenian girl wasn't die,her mother push her to wake up.FİRST, she cant be a dead because there are no blood or other victims,SECOND she couldn't freeze because our middle east side is very hot she could only sleep it is an emperialist fake:D:D:Dwhat silly things for push you think this child is dead or alive:D:D:D

Kurds were killed along the Armenians

There were many Kurdish tribes that were sided with the fellow Armenians. They were prosecuted along the Armenians. The number of Kurds killed in the region was 2.000.0000 people. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it cited with multiple high caliber RS sources ?Taprobanus (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the same high caliber RS source which stated the first three. The source is good enough for the first three but not for the fourth one? --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there were. There were also many Turks who sheltered or helped Armenians. That doesn't change the simple historical fact that most Armenians who were killed directly were murdered by Kurds and that there was no genocidal campaign waged by the Ottomans against Kurds, in fact there wasn't even any type persecution!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of criminal Kurds that were paid by Turks. But Kurds did not kill 1.5 million Armenians. This is not the fact. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to come across ANY reputable academic source that claims a Kurdish Genocide contemporaneous with the Armenian Genocide. If anything, there is evidence of Kurdish involvement in the massacre of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Anatolia. The link and mention of a "Kurdish Genocide" on the Armenian Genocide page should be swiftly removed. (I already have reverted once today.) Serouj (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria you use in your rejection "Kurdish Genocide contemporaneous with the Armenian Genocide" is not enough to reject the inclusion of the Kurdish Genocide. I despise your the idea of using "size of a Genocide" to accept and reject. This is clear a POV. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahmetsaatalti, "contemporaneous" does not refer to "size of a Genocide." It means "occurring in the same period of time." While the government of Turkey may be involved in a campaign of genocide against Kurds, I have not seen anywhere else other than the article which you have provided about a Kurdish Genocide contemporaneous with the Armenian Genocide. I think this issue needs more research before it can be mentioned in the Armenian Genocide article. (I would first recommend growing the Kurdish Genocide (WWI) article, and if enough grounding is found, then we may return to include a link to it from this article.) Serouj (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You talk like you know in and out all the Genocides of World War One. I do not know where you got your PhD, or who give you this confidence. I will not involve "Personal argumentation." Journal of Genocide Research says it is "contemporaneous" to Armenian Genocide. What I see is "You accept this source for the first three (included in this article), but reject the Kurdish." Where does in Wikipedia says editors during citing sources, can re-word or select the single words used in the original source texts? You use the source for the first three but reject the Kurdish. ALSO Where does in Wikipedia says it is not enough that the source is credible but it has to be "grounding"? By the way I think it is grounding enough. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is a problem, as it seems to be some sort of a fringe theory. It's not even peer reviewed as it seems. Ahmetsaatalti, Kurds were targetted under the Kemalist regime but that was long after the Armenian Genocide and that is beyond the scope of this article. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Journal of Genocide Research" is a famous journal, which was headed by famous Armenian historian Hovanesian. This article cites his papers. If you claim this is a joke journal publishing joke genocides (Kurdish), than what would it say about the Armenian Genocide. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, Kurds are facing and have faced regimes that would have like to see all Kurds dead and gone I.e Genocide) But Ahmet what is being proposed here is a good compromise, first develop the Kurdish genocide article then interlink it with this one. We already have enough trouble maintaining this in the face of a Turkey rejecting that Armenian genocide happned at all. Taprobanus (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I will accept this comprise as long as POV tag stays in the top of the article. I do not see how improving Kurdish Genocide article changes the fact that the article is compromised of "nit picking" from credible sources. That does not change the fact this wikipedia article reflects only part of the reality presented in the original source. Doesn't it bring the question what else is "nit picked." --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ahmet, this article is about the Armenian Genocide. Whether or not we include a reference to the Kurdish Genocide article (which needs more research done) should not result in the ENTIRE Armenian Genocide article having a POV tag on it! I think you bring up an interesting issue, and I thank you for providing the link to the article. However, let's first try to get more research done on the Kurdish Genocide's main article, and we may return to this issue at a future time. Again, I don't think that the POV for the entire Armenian Genocide article is at stake here. Thanks. Serouj (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Taprobanus (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag does not mean everything in the article is wrong. It is not a grade you get from your teacher. You (Serouj) can not say "99% of the article reflects the credible sources," so there is not any POV. This article includes a source. This source claims Young Turks killed not only Armenians, Greeks, ... but also Kurds. You are fine up to Kurds. But the same source also includes Kurds. You reject his single position. That tells something (not a good thing) about you and the authors of this article. I state; You are biased and anything came out of your hand is Biased. I tried to fix it in this article. You do not let me do it. I'm warning other readers that there is a substantial evidence that the article is owned and protected by group of people who "nit pick." --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahmet, as mentioned earlier, this article is about the Armenian Genocide, not the Kurdish Genocide. Until the "Kurdish Genocide (WWI)" article reaches a certain level of maturity, it cannot be placed in this article because it is based on ONE article. Meanwhile, the overwhelming literature regarding this period makes no mention of a Kurdish Genocide (indeed, Kurds are implicated in their role in the genocide of the Armenians). We're not ruling out including a reference to the Kurdish Genocide in this article when sufficient progress is made in its own respective article; until then, I don't think the Armenian Genocide article is the place to make this point.Serouj (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The "genocidal intent of Young Turks" is the cornerstone of this article. There is no single mass grave discovered including in the deserts of Syria that belonged to 1,500,000 Armenians died under a "state planned" genocide. This article needs the "genocidal intent" (cornerstone) in the absence of undeniable proof. Your article begins nearly 50 years before the World War One to prove Young Turks intended to kill Armenians during this period. You guys are biased by reflecting only a part of "genocidal intent." You nit pick the groups that were killed with this genocidal intent during World War One. I'm referring to the same source which was chosen by this article to prove the intent. You are selecting only Christians from this source and ignoring Kurds. My point is about this article and the editors who "nit pick" the activities of the period. My objection is about the biased content of this article. It is totally unrelated to "sufficient progress" in another article. If you do not fix the bias reflected in the "cornerstone" argument in this article , the tag has a rightful place to stay. --Ahmetsaatalti (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the POV tag, I believe it can be discussed but adding a POV tag is absurd. --Namsos (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is truely absurd to tag this article with POV tag just for one line item. At best what Ahmet can do is inline dispute that particulat line.Taprobanus (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Armenian Genocide Map-en.svg

This map keeps cropping up and I can't find out who created it. It seems to be lifted from armenica.org. Was it originally published in a reliable source? Does any reliable source at least vouch for it? If not, it has to go. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an amalgam of two maps:[24], [25].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The second describes Khanzadian's map as "outdated", while the first is no RS. Any other leads? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This image is the SVG version of an image from armenica.org which itself is a clone of Map 234 in Hewsen 2001, p. 232.
Hewsen, Robert H. (2001). Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-33228-4.
Serouj (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, a low-res image of the map from Hewsen's book can be found among the sample images on the book's website here.Serouj (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The map (or rather the Khanzadian map on which it is mainly based) should really be treated as a work of art, not a factual document. Quite a lot has been writen about its origin, its inaccuracies, and it having become an iconic image that transends its factual value. Nothing as formal as "deportation control centers" or "deportation stations" existed, the routes shown are often imaginary, and real routes are often not shown at all: for example, nobody would travel from Kemah to Egin via Divrigi (and survivors accounts indicate the direct route was taken). Meowy 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Work of art". LOL. Khanzadian map?? Where did you get that from? Hewsen's book (page 232) notes the sources for the map as "after J. Naslian and B.H. Harutyunyan". Serouj (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this, and try to keep your "lols" to yourself. http://www.gomidas.org/forum/icons.pdf Meowy 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting article. Good thing Hewsen didn't use Khanzadian's map (altough it has its shortcomings, it's not as if Khanzadian's map is way off the mark). Hewsen credits others for the map in his book, as mentioned above. Serouj (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Deaths

Meowy. Dont delete my contribs. Please stop vandalism. We have enough space in Wiki. [[26]]

Real name of this article:

Armenian Deaths

You can find many article about this name. this name is NPOV.

1.US resolution on Armenian deaths angers Turkey [27]

EU Slams French Bill on Armenian Deaths[28]

2.Usage of the terms:

swissinfo: Why won't the Senate recognise the Armenian deaths as genocide like other western countries?[29]

Geft noted that the museum does recognize the Armenian deaths as an act of genocide[30]

3.But the Turkish government, and some US historians, say the Armenian deaths and deportations should not be labeled genocide. They argue that the violence and upheavals came in the context of a war that brought great loss of life on all sides, and that the killings were a response to a massive armed rebellion by Armenians that began before the war broke out.[31]

-- Armenian Deaths Labeled as a Genocide by Armenia and some countries. But that is not a reason to say Armenian Genocide in Wikipedia.

Sample of the rule:

US says Al Qaida is a Terrorist Organisation. NATO says Al Qaida is a Terrorist Organisation. UN says Al Qaida is a Terrorist Organisation. EU says Al Qaida is a Terrorist Organisation.

But Wiki shouldnt write Al Qaida is a Terrorist Organisation. Wikipedia should write Al Qaida is accepted as a Terrorist Organisation by US,NATO,UN,EU etc.

--Qwl (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth are some parts of the archives missing?

I realized that some of the original topics are removed from archive 1. The last topic of the current version of archive 1 is the one entitled as "Fresh Overhaul". But what I came to realize is that the second half of this topic is missing. Some 30 other topics are completely missing up to the topic entitled as "Coolcat STOP IT" which is the first topic of archive 2. I think this really damages the flow of argument in this page and I wonder why these topics are deleted. Is there anyone who can answer that?

Why care - it's from back in 2005. The article is still in a mess after 18 pages of talk, so I doubt if anything that worthwile was lost! Meowy 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... I care because I think some of the discussions there are worth reading and I think somebody deleted them on purpose. I can provide the original discussion if there is someone out there who has the authority to update the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.11.94 (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Video Of French Politician

Hi, I give you a video of a well-kwnon french politician Jack Lang who says that French Parliament have voted resolution that admited the massacres of armenians in 1915 was a genocide to "buy" armenians votes for elections (sorry for my bad english) : 1 --81.64.4.97 (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what he said, but whatever, he's only Jack Lang. Sardur (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At 3:15, he said in french "ils l'ont fait en pensant récolter les voix de la communauté arménienne de France" that is :" they do that to take the armenians communauties vote". Why do you lie Sardur, you are an armenian who contribute in French Wikipedia to Band Turkish Wikinaute. I have made an article about the attacks of Asala, and you have delete this article because you are an armenian. Wikipedia is not an armenian website, it's a free encyclopedia !!

Jack Lang is only Jack Lang ?? You just want to minimize Jack Lang, but Jack Lang is the most known politician in France --81.64.4.97 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He's one of the most mocked politicians in France... DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no lie, he's talking about the punishment of the denial, not about the admittance. And I'm not Armenian, Aniosgel. Sardur (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He did not claim it wasn't genocide, he was protesting against a law proposal (bill) (in 2006) for mandatory punishment for denying it was genocide, cynically calling it a "purely political gesture", [32] only a very small minority in french politics were against this bill, and it passed 106 to 19 [33] Mahjongg (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Article

Just to begin, this article scares the shit out of me, but I think it's a very interesting topic and I would be really pleased to see it become an FA someday, especially considering the controversial nature of this. Since I really have no experience concerning this topic (I totally suck at history), I have been providing a few spoken versions of articles. I think this could be helpful in the sense that speaking or hearing a piece of prose really helps the writer(s) notice errors on many different levels, be it grammatical, issues with flow, or simply things that aren't presented... very sensitively :) I could probably prepare the article in a couple of days, but you also have to keep in mind that the spoken version cannot be updated as readily as the text version, so my recording would go out of date pretty quickly (from what I can tell, that's the understatement of the century). Please let me know what the thoughts are on this. Yarnbarndarn (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WWI

There is a fake info. Persian campaign and Caucasus campaign may affect Armenian people. But do you know where Gallipoli is? In west parts of Turkey Armenian people live only Smyrne and Constantinople. So you may have to clarify this info. Youcan also check the article Gallipoli campaign out. All you have to do is to start a search button (Ctrl+F) and write "armen" in... You'll see what I mean.Entuluve (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn more about where Armenians lived in the Ottoman empire. For the Galipoli area, I do remember reading somewhere that the Greek and Armenian inhabitants of Galipoli were deported early on after the Allied landings, though not for specific genocidal purposes but because the Ottoman authorities did not want the Allied forces to have access to a local population who might help them. However, that paragraph could also be saying that the Gallipoli fighting affected the Armenian population in other parts of the empire in an adverse way, in a similar way that the Ottoman defeat at Sarikamish did. Meowy 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You should learn where Armenian people lived, before, and now. This never happened. There is another problem. There was other Armenian conflict of Ottoman Empire during Balkan Wars, not in Chanakkale (or Gallipoli). Greek peoples are also massacred but not in Gallipoli, it was all during Balkan Wars of Ottoman Empire. When it comes to Gallipoli, "Ittihat ve Terakki" were no longer powerful in government, which is the responsible of genocide the political party of "Young Turks".

Migration of Armenian people from Marmara,not only Gallipoli, has charged after intelligence of Russian Csardom attack plans. So Rumelian Armenian people are either killed or forced to migrate by government. Please read carefully the Article: Gallipoli campaign in wiki.

No, if you remember you read please show us with source. Some citation.Entuluve (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles or mirror websites co not serve as a basis for writing or editing other wiki articles. Aregakn (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)