Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

WP:RFC: Problems

The fundamental problem with this article can be summarised from WP:RS: Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The Holocaust article does not treat Holocaust denial arguments seriously because they are exceptional claims without exceptional evidence. The same argument applies here to presenting the "Turkish position" (the position of the Turkish government would be more accurate). Other issues, bias and undue weight, per WP:NPOV and burden of evidence from WP:V and false authority and independent sources from WP:RS, all speak to the issue, but are secondary. My view is that history is not written by governments, or by courts, or by sending open letters, but by historians writing books and papers, reliable sources in other words.

Further issues include a systematic failure of WP:AGF. Those who wish to see the Turkish government's position given undue weight refer to the orthodox argument — which appears to be that it was a genocide — as the "the Armenian position", when in fact it is the only notable position to be found on Google Books.

WP:CIV and WP:WQT appear not to apply here, and many editors seem to mistake this talk page for usenet, a chat page or a blog, which it is WP:NOT. WP:SOCK, via anonymous users, appears to be of epidemic proportions, apparently for evading WP:3RR and creating an echo effect on this talk page. The views of those who have edited The Holocaust or similar articles would seem to be particularly relevant here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be quite misleading to take the Jewish Holocaust as a reference for this article because the differences are overwhelming. A summary of the major differences can be found here. The following quotation from a Nobel Prize winning Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres, closes the discussion: “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide...Israel should not determine a historical or philosophical position on the Armenian issue. If we have to determine a position, it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities. [1]”

In contrast to the initiator of this RfC, I think that the article gives more weight to the Armenian claims than they scholarly deserve. Many distinguished historians including Bernard Lewis of Princeton, J.C. Hurewitz of Columbia University, Gilles Veinstein of College de France, Halil Inalcik of University of Chicago (also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in History), Stanford Shaw of UCLA (retired), Heath Lowry of Princeton, Justin McCarthy of University of Louisville, Rhoads Murphey of University of Birmingham, Roderic Davison of Central European University hold a different view than the one presented in this article. Mainly they do not agree that genocide took place based on the scholarly work available and they believe that much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike [2].

Indeed, respected encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica [3], which has consulted to historians for their articles, do not refer to these events as Armenian Genocide, they rather use Armenian Massacres, which's a neutral choice of words for an unsettled issue. I’d like to take this opportunity and ask others to also comment on whether using the term genocide is appropriate in this article or the term massacres would be more appropriate, especially given that Armenian claims have never been legally or historically substantiated. Deepblue06 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page has become more a debate forum than a collaboration. It is not the editors job, by this ceaseless argument, to determine the 'facts'. That is a specialised task being carried out ongoingly by infinitely better qualified historians. Many of these historians dispute the Armenian thesis. This must therefore be reflected in the article and reflected without prejudice (i.e. without links like 'also see Holocaust denial'). Unless some of you are suggesting you have professional credentials anywhere near those of the historians in question, any attempt to override them leaves us in the position where we are producing propaganda rather than an article befitting an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.24 (talk • contribs) .

Look who's talking. Fad (ix) 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Distortion and falsehood, Deepblue06 is once again trying to creat the notability that his position doesn't posses. Let start with his distortion about Britannica. He claims « Indeed, respected encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica »... giving the illusion that various respected encyclopedia's don't use the term genocide, while only Britannica doesn't, and only in some of its issues. Universalis the French conterpart, from which Britannica hold shares like every other notable Western encyclopedia's beside Britannica use the term Armenian genocide in its lead. That Britannica over the years has recieved threats from Turkey and got sanitized (threats that still deepblue06 considers as simple speculations, even though Encarta has recieved similar threats to remove the word genocide from the article but unlike Britannica they resisted).

Let see the entry dating 1922.

With the Empire at war and the Committee (CUP) in Power, the Turkish Government resolved to execute their cherished scheme for the complete "Turkification" of Asia Minor…But "Turkification" was aimed chiefly against the Armenians, who were to be exterminated. During 1915-16 organized massacres and deportations were carried out systematically, to the extent of almost uprooting the Armenian race from Asia Minor. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered; hundreds of thousands set marching for Syria and Mesopotamia perished on the way by hardship, disease, starvation; those who escaped became fugitives; from first to last at least three quarters of a million Armenians perished in Asia Minor in a population of less than two million.

What did happen later? In 1929, the entry was written by a Turkish historian, A.A, Adnan, and it was replaced by the followings.

During the Turco-Russian battles on the Caucasian Front, the Armenians created disturbances behind the Turkish lines and threatened to cut the lines of communications. The Turkish government began a general deportation in which atrocities were committed on a large scale. When General Antranik, the Russo-Armenian general, entered eastern Anatolia, the Armenian soldiers under his command, the so-called "Christian Army of Revenge," replied by similar atrocities.

Things got out of hand after the Armenian genocide was reinserted, and later relativised by Yapp, the famous British revisionist who happen to be the one that reviewed Dadrian Work, Balakian's work, and any possible work he came accross claiming that there was no sufficient evidence of genocide. But yet in 1974, he still somehow recognized the genocide, this was his entry.

During the war the Young Turks also took the opportunity to attack certain internal problems…and the Armenian community in eastern Asia Minor and Cilicia was massacred or deported as part of a deliberate policy of eliminating one cause of European interference. Possibly a million Armenians either fled or were killed (principally by Kurdish irregulars) or deported.

In 1985, Yapp modifify further the text, which becomes the following.

During the war the Young Turks also took the opportunity to attack certain internal problems…and the Armenian community in eastern Asia Minor and Cilicia was massacred or deported as part of a deliberate policy of eliminating one cause of European interference. Possibly a million Armenians either fled or were killed (principally by Kurdish irregulars) or deported.

Let compare the versions of 1992 and 1995.

During the late 19th century the millet system for the governance of minorities began to deteriorate and systematic persecution of Armenians began, culminating in the genocidal massacre of the Armenians during World War I.

Became

During the late 19th century the millet system, under which religious and ethnic minorities had been granted local autonomy (50), began to deteriorate, leading to growing unrest and culminating in the genocidal massacre of the Armenians during World War I.

Also, Britannica uses Justin McCarthy nearly as sole sources to draw the numbers of victims and back this with Toynbee estimates which represented the losses of 1915 (see: the research note provided with the figures).

In Short, the versions of Britannica have changed over the years, and will be changing, claiming that Britannica does not support the genocide thesis is simply wrong because it has more published versions using terms such as extermination than else. And thanks to the way some fringe in the accademia like Yapp were reponsable of the articles, this ought to be refferenced. I doubt that Vickery's appologistic text in an encyclopedia about the genocide in Cambodia could be randered as equal to the majority position just because it is published in Britannica.

Also, all the names Deepblue06 provides, at least 3 of them at least once have accepted the majority position. Deepblue06 simply copypast the materials he find out on the web, when it is apparent that he hasn't even read their published work. In his work The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 1979, p. 356 Lewis write:

"Now a desperate struggle between them began a struggle between nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible holocaust of 1915 when a million and half Armenians perished."

Gilles Veinstein should definitly be included, but what should also be included is that a chair of Turkish history has been specifically founded and funded for him back 1988 and that he heads the History center of Turkish studies and the team of Turkish and Ottoman studies of the CNRS. If an Armenologist recognize the genocide, it ought to be mentioned that he or she is an Armenologist. Hoffman is an Armenologist. That the very large majority of the fringe in the Western Accademia who support the Turkish government thesis are Turkologists ought to be mentioned, that they lead chairs of Turkish studies founded and funded by Turkey ought to be mentioned. Those are relevant informations.

Also, that Lowry did admit according to a newspaper article, having come accross an Ottoman document strongly suggesting the Ottoman autorities involvement in the massacres also ought to be mentioned, or the incidence between him and Lifton. As for Davison, he has no place on that list, having read his work on the Armenian crises 1912-1914, I don't see how he can be bragged as someone supporting the official Turkish government line. Again an example of Deepblue06 taking what he finds on the web as granted.

Comming to Staford Shaw, the controversy serounding the accusation that he has plagiated his major work on a Turkish historian ought to be also included. That there are serious controversies serounding most of those that vocally reject the majority thesis isen't something made by me, or 'Armenian propagandists.' That Deepblue is attempting to take few scholars and showing them as 'few examples of those Western scholars who don't accept the Armenian genocide thesis' is yet another example of distortion. And that Britannica, in some of its versions either written by Turkish historians or the fringe in the West like Yapp who questions the Armenian genocide, doesn't make of this as 'here an example of a respected encyclopedia who question the thesis of genocide.'

It is pretty easy to build some notability and claim that the Holocaust revisionist version is as notable as the official version. I can do that too, by referring to Rudolf, Rassinier, Faurisson, Zundel, Irving etc., etc. and etc. this is a matter of what is the majority position and what is the minority position. I do admit that right now the lead is tainted, but the blame is to be shared among the Turkish nationalists and Armenian nationalists POV pushers that have engaged in a recent revert war in which, in no way I was implicated in.

Lastly concerning Shimon Peres words, it should be relevant to note that those remarks were made before a planed visit in Turkey during somehow a colder relation between between Turkey and Israel about one week before April 24. Besides, the justification of not recognizing the genocide from Peres was: "out of concern for the unique place of the Holocaust in the chronicles of human history." Which simply means that he only recognize the Holocaust as genocide. Like Lewy who has denied pratically any other instances of genocide. If such an infomration about Peres position is included those ought to be included. But Deepblue06 will brag those as speculations even thought there are words from the concerned parties testifying to it.

Deepblue and other POV pushers don't find it enough that there is a large section dedicated to their positions, what they request is to have the entire article representing their POV, this is not how it works, that most support a position against the other ought to be mentioned, that most of those in the academia who reject the thesis of the genocide are Ottomanist/Turkologist are ought to be mentioned, if not, it would simply be a deletion of information to mislead the reader and creat an illusion of notability that the position in question just doesn't have.

I oppose that this cases here is a RfC material, this is rather a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and rules, what has been happening in here is an RfAr material. Various things out here should be settled and propositions about the way to deal with this article should come from an Arbcom decision. It is not simply a content dispute, it is the refusal to adhere to the guidelines and rules, and from both sides. Fad (ix) 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was meant for asking outsider comments. Anybody who follows this talk page already knows very well (if hasn't memorized yet) what Fadix thinks about on each single issue. Let's give others a chance to voice their comments. I'm not going to address the above accusations for that reason. If anybody is still reading Fadix's long essays and still taking them seriosly let me know, I'll be happy to address them for you. Deepblue06 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong to present a sample of the sort of misunderstanding of policies and guildines and the way people rely on doubful web contents or either try misleading others. That you think that both position should have equal coverage is sufficient to know who should be taken seriously. Fad (ix) 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stay away from strawman arguments like "denial"

To dismiss everything that does not fit the Zoryan Institute version of events as 'Genocide Denial' is absurd. Denying that the events fit a particular label is NOT to deny the events occured. To dispute the accuracy of the Dadrian's version of events is NOT to deny the events.

Dadrian's work has been picked apart and he has been shown several times to use selective quoting, elipsing and paraphrasing to mislead. This has been empirically demonstrated by historians such as Professor Guenter Lewy and, for those of you who will just call Lewy a 'denier', even those who Dadrian relies on as citations like Hilmar Kaiser.

A search on any engine for distinguished Middle Eastern historians using whichever choice of words you wish will time and time again bring up Professor Bernard Lewis as the man regarded by his peers as the foremost authority. And you know what the conclusions of his studies on this are.

The 69 Western scholars of Ottoman history who disagreed with the accuracy of the Armenian claims enough to write to congress to oppose the bill, and God knows how many more would have but for the terrorism being perpetrated against such individuals, are sufficient proof that the likes of Lewis, Lewy, Mango etc are not just a few contrarians.

There is a legitimate dispute here. So DISPUTE, not DENIAL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.205 (talk • contribs) .

If I am not mistaken the scholars who signed the newsprint rejecting the genocide thesis did it back in '85, which was when Armenian terrorism was at its peak. That explains why many more didnt come forward. Standford Shaw once explained how he was threatened by Armenian fanatics because he was going to lecture on the deeds of Turkey during WW2. This was whilst he was lecturing at UCLA. Lutherian 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Can we at least agree that we disagree? I do not understand why the disputed tags keep being removed despite the obvious and ongoing dispute in here on the content of the article. If anyone wishes to remove the tags they should at least explain why they feel we all agree the article is accurate and objective. I would personally love to see an attempt at making that case just for my own amusement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.205 (talk • contribs) .

Anglus, why do you keep removing the disputed tags? Are you pretending that we all agree on this? THIS IS A DISPUTED ARTICLE - SCROLL DOWN AND READ THE DISPUTE. IT GOES ON ENDLESSLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.205 (talk • contribs) .

Turkish HR recognition of genocide

So let me get this straight, just because some guy called Steve O'connell in an article of his says that the Turkish Human Rights organization recognizes the so called genocide, that it should be constituted as true? If you are going to provide evidence, might as well refer to the source, not Tom, Dick or Harry!!! Lutherian 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

When it happens that the co-founder of the organisation has his publishing house and edit works regarding the genocide, and that he says that the Turkish human right organisation recognize it, I'd qualify this as recognition. Fad (ix) 17:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy is a published writer, you can't just shoot him down for no reason. Is there any reason to suggest that he plays fast and loose with the facts? Fightindaman 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont care if he was the pope, can you explain to me why there is no mention of this recognition on the OFFICIAL TURKISH HUMAN RIGHTS WEBSITE? Am I missing something here or is this topic totally biased? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lutherian (talk • contribs) .

I'm not familiar with the website, would you care to post a link? Fightindaman 19:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The website is here (IHD). I didn't find anything, but I don't read Turkish. All the same, the consilience of the many results I get through googling convinces me beyond reasonable doubt that the Insan Haklari Dernegi did refer to a genocide as the article claims. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You dont need to read Turkish, there is an English section on the site and there is NO mention of genocide! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.137.159 (talk • contribs) .

This is correct. A google search of the website reveals the use of the word genocide only once, and that was in connection with Saddam Hussein. Fightindaman 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ragib Zarakolu is the co-founder of the organization, and has a publishing house editing books about the genocide. The organization has also an extention with Human Rights Association Turkey-Germany, which not only recognize the Armenian genocide but also protest its denial and sign petitions etc. Fad (ix) 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps you could re-add it, as Lutherian removed it. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said earlier: Unless there is an explicit mention of the so called Armenian "genocide" on the official TURKISH HR web site, it is misleading to assume that this is the case. If the co-founder supposedly published material on the "genocide" this constitutes opinion and nothing else. Again, the keyword here is OFFICIAL and there is no indication of an official recognition. Lutherian 18:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The organization members were thrown in prison in various occasion for having attempted to publish any materials. The publishing houses Zarakollu runs is an intermedary publishing unite to publish human right materials, its archive contained various documentations from the Human right organization before it was destroyed by fire. Its extention in Germany (Human Rights Association Turkey-Germany) doesn't manage its word and officialy recognize it. Every Turkish human right organizations I know of recognize the genocide. Info-Turk, another Turkish human right organization has published articles relating to such issues and its founders officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Fad (ix) 19:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We know that IHD is a Kurdish organization, no wonder they make such statements. Info-Turk is also supporting PKK and DHKP-C terrorist organizations. Info-Turk's homepage in French mentions terrorist names like they're normal citizens: "des dimensions scandaleuses par l'arrestation du citoyen belge Bahar Kimyongur aux Pays-Bas et de la journaliste kurde Zubeyde Ersoz au Luxembourg". Fadix come on let's play honest. --Gokhan 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats an excellent remark, Gokhan. These organizations are obviously set up as fronts by terrorist linked militant kurds to attack Turkey on any matter that they can come up with. And they go under the guise of a human rights organization to lend credence to their attacks, a bit like those farcical genocide scholars and their circus organizations. The fact that Fadix chooses to turn a blind eye on such a significant matter is proof that he is far from being objective on this topic! Tsk, tsk. Lutherian 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment about the genocide issue. Fadix will naturally try to increase the list. As long as it's clean and honest, no problem. If I saw one, I'd add myself. But I don't understand why these genocide people generally also support PKK. They contribute much time in PKK/Apo/Kurds etc articles. I know they may think "what's bad for Turks is good for us" however PKK is a terrorist organization killing people. I hope the contributions are not done on enmity and hatred only. Because each day people are killed in Turkey, both Turks and Kurds, and not Turkish government, military nor PKK is hurt actually. Only real people and their families pay the high price. There are some human rights issues in our country, and we need work together with parties involved. Sanctioning PKK won't help this cause. Diaspora is also acting against EU candidacy or financial aids to Turkey etc, which is fine and understandable. But please no killing, no PKK, no DHKP-C. --Gokhan 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally support the PKK? I haven't seen those participating in this article getting involved in PKK issues. The IHD is registered by the Internarnational human right organization as the Turkish human right organinization including the Human right foundation. Obviously there are Kurds in this organization, but you don't expect refusing Kurdish members do you? As for Info-Turk. It doesn't support the PKK, I have followed this organization for years, regularly read their articles. You must consider that the PKK has two branch, one componment also include intellectuals and activists. If Info-Turk is a corrupted news source than Al-jasira should be sued. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs) diff

I don't know about Al-Jazeera and frankly I don't care. However I know that terrorist organizations from Turkey find safe havens in Europe, specifically in Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany under disguise of political or human rights entities. Those governments give citizenship to these people, do not deliver to Turkey when caught, and support their organizations fiscally. In Netherlands and Greece there're PKK training camps. Denmark supports Roj TV which initiated the latest bloodshed in southeast by media propaganda. IHD and similar organizations seem legitimate and probably there are good-willed people in them, but politically they are working against the good of people of Turkey. Also they provide an opportunity to westerners or anti-turkish camps to express enmity towards Turkey. Anyway these are facts. I'm also human, I also have rights, I'm also from Turkey and none of these organizations work for me. Human Rights in Turkey is not equal Kurds. PKK is a bloody terrorist organization, killing both civilians and soldiers. All of the killed/scarred people also had once human rights. I frankly don't care wiki-style naming/wording politics running on related articles :) --Gokhan 07:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys have wandered a bit from the topic at hand. In the course of it you seem to have implicitly acknowledged that the organization does, in fact, support the characterization of genocide. The question really is what citation is best.

I really don't think that anyone is taking the position that somebody killing somebody else is good -- recently, or a century ago. The underlying point of an article such as this one is to document a historic event as a lesson to the future to not repeat it. --Moby 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby the same as you or others here, I dream of a peaceful & hateless world without any killing. The discussion and my personal focus here is not about the article itself though. My point is that the organizations mentioned by Fadix here are biased. At least that point should be mentioned together with their names, because it may be political. If they have an official declaration of acknowledgement somewhere that can be documented, then pls go ahead and add their names to the list, np. --Gokhan 06:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked for information on this organization and didn't find much; mayby someone should start an article on it. If an organization can reasonably be discredited then it should not be used as a citation. I believe that the TallArmenianTale site is a good example of a discredited site.

See Also: Genocide on the march (about Darfur) --Moby 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the real issue of contention here is whether the events of 1915-16 amounts to genocide and there are two very opposite views on this. The problem is that neither side makes concessions and neither side is objective on the matter and we thus end up going around in circles with endless claims and counter claims. The Armenian disapora have a well documented hatred towards anything even remotely Turkish, a bit like the Turks more traditional enemies the Greeks and the Cypriots (just look at the number of Cypriot hate sites out there). In this highly charged context, it is impossible to approach the subject with genuine good will and its complete and utter failure on whats suppose to be a neutral platform like Wiki is a clear testament of this 81.62.136.98 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect to be credible when you use words such as 'enemies,' and no the issue is not complicated, neither is the goal to determine if it is a enocide or not. The issue is very simple, Wikipedia is not here to determine anything, this is not a platform for people to discuss what the true is or not. We simply provide informations on what is said about a particular subject, what are the positions, who support such, such and such position and who doesn't etc. This was the reason why the Turkish human right organization was included and not the boost the 'claim' of genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs) diff

How do I expect to be credible when mentioning a pure and simple fact? Are you kidding me? Look at the history, it speaks for itself! Ever since the events that unfolded during the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the majority of Armenians have adopted a very hostile attitude towards Turks. Hell they even went on a killing spree during the 70's and 80's, indiscrimenately murdering Turkish diplomats, their spouses, children and others. All the while, the hypocritical Europeans where turning a blind eye. But the murderous strategy of those low life terrorist thugs was bound to fail and it finally did when Turkish special forces wiped them out for good. It is therefore wishfull thinking to have an Armenian approach this subject objectively and in good faith and, as a result, there will be no agreement, especially not one that is forced upon the Turks. 81.62.136.98 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian, what are you doing in Wikipedia, seriously? Since you are not here to contribute writting articles, but rather call other ethnic groups as enemies, what is your goal as a Wikipedian? Fad (ix) 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, since the spirit of wiki articles is to be as objective as possible on any subject matter, it is also my duty to make sure that this is the case. This topic is probably the one that is furtherest away from that goal and leaves a lot to be desired. I mean whats next? A link to a quote by someone's neighbor who supports the genocide thesis? To this day, I have yet to discover an Armenian who treats this subject objectively. Its more like science fiction! Lutherian 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevent, we are discussing about the official Turkish human right organization, and its take is relevent. Fad (ix) 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, what is this "official" means? This IHD is just an organization with a name which means "Insan Haklari Dernegi" which means "Human Rights Organization". It's just a name, it doesn't mean it's an official or representative organization of Turkey in any sense. It's an NGO. Their objectivity is also disputed but that's something else. If they have an opinion on that, it's theirs only. You should stop using this "official" thing. Thanks. --Gokhan 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think similarly on this issue. It's a mess. I also wonder what will happen after (if) this issue is (ever) resolved. All this built-up hatred won't go away. So nobody will win again. It's pity. --Gokhan 09:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the specific question of the THRO's position. The larger question is not about to be solved here anytime soon. The wiki-process here may influence some people (in a positive way) and may influence real-world events (in a small way). Major progress here will only be driven by major real-world progress. The fact the articles such as this one can't be sorted-out is a fundamental failure of the wiki paradigm. --Moby 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

BIASED

It's weird that I did not see any text stating that the Armenians killed hundreds of Turks and burned their towns although it is a fact. This article is obviously biased. How ridicilous that some people, who has nothing better to do, rely on writing factually inaccurate articles to empose what they think to the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.103.159.14 (talk • contribs) .

It is almost as weird as not seeing text about the Jewish massacres of poor Nazi Germans... I just don't understand. --RaffiKojian 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

RaffiKojian, as a Jew, I condemn you for comparing the Holocaust to an intercommunal strife. My grandparents (my mother's father and her grandmother) have been murdered by the ARMENIANS as many other villages around were burned down by the Armenians in Anatolia. For G-d's sake, can you cite one event in 1930's and 1940's in Germany that a Jew burned down a village, killed Germans? No, you can't. As you always do, you are trying to appeal to our pity, but drop this nonsense mission. Enough's enough. You cannot change history and you cannot erase the guilt of your ancestors, who caused more than half a million deaths of Ottoman Jews and Muslims. For the first time in history, why don't you admit that your ancestors started an intercommunal war and even caused more deaths than they suffered? Is it that hard to accept the facts? Please, enough with your propaganda. If you wish to continue your baseless claims, at least stop mentioning the Holocaust because it is just another suffering for us to see you USE the massacres of millions of Jews for you own sake. Your sake: to squander money from Turkish government, to found a new anew Armenia on Turkish land, to continue killing more Muslims as well as Jews in Anatolia... --David R. Tzur

I don't think so.. since one is accepted by the German govenment and people, one is not accepted by the Turkish govenment and people. And Turkey has strong evidences.

Btw, someone should create an article on how Americans "genocided" the Indians and placed a few remaining Indians into a camp to protect them afterwards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.103.159.14 (talk • contribs) .

You mean like: Indian massacres and Native Americans in the United States? --RaffiKojian 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it figures, the Armenians have a roughly 70 year lead over the Turks for their highly opiniated view of the events of that period. No wonder world opinion sides with the Armenians, during all those years they have been exposed to a biased one sided view of that tragic period of history! The Turks finally woke up and realized that the "peace and home, peace abroad" formula did not work anymore (the wake up call came around the time when brainwashed fanatic Armenian thugs went on a killing spree in the 70's and 80's, killing totally innocent Turkish diplomats and their families). Bottom line, there is a lot of catching up to do but now the ball is finally rolling! 81.62.143.131 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me a non-internet source for your claims. This Armenian genocide thing is for some reason just a support for people who hate Turks. On another point, even if the genocide happened (it didn't) you can NOT blame all the Turks for something the ruler did.

The Armenians were even given a name like "The Trusted Nation" by the Ottoman Empire because they never acted against the government and were living peacefully. Though this fact changed after "Ayastefanos" when Armenians unjustly demanded a country of theirs. and during the war, instead of repaying the debt of the peace Ottoman Empire provided them, they attacked MANY Turkish villages killed MANY Turkish people. As a result they were migrated to a seperate area, which caused a lot of people to die. It doesn't sound like a genocide does it?

Also, the Armanians never lead over the Turks. Wonder where you get those information.. maybe by making up?

My advice to you is that you should read ALL sources about the subject, not just the ones that are biased.

On another note, the "peace at home, peace in the world" was the politics AFTER the war. So it's factually inaccurate to say "The Turks finally woke up and realized that the "peace and home, peace abroad" formula did not work anymore" since at that time, that phrase wasn't even said by Ataturk. Check your information before making any claims.

Need more objective sources

I frankly think we need to present some objective sources about the Armenian struggle against Turkish government for an independent state. (We know that Armenians who wished to establish an independent Christian state in Eastern Anatolia similar to its counterparts in the Balkans have established the Black Cross, Armenekan, Homeland Defenders Committees in Anatolia, the Hincakh Committee in Geneva and the Tashnak Committee in Tbilisi).

I think the activities of Armenian organizations are also a key issue. Currently there is small info about those revolts, they are mentioned as "minor". However what these organizations did against local Turkish population is unknown.

Because in my opinion the tragedy has 2 major players: Young Turks team in Ottoman Government and Armenian militia organizations helped by Russia. Each had its own agenda. The Turkish and Armenian local population must have been inescapely turned against each other because of the bloodshed and propaganda.

I think the current approach mostly ignores the faith of local Turkish population and political activities of Armenian organizations. I know my Armenian friends would not concur, but I'm not trying to minimize any suffering or justify any outcome. However shouldn't we explore this line of reasoning as well? --Gokhan 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It rather depends what you're trying to achieve. Someone might say that you were trying to minimise the impact of the events in question by saying "oh well the Armenians - made us do it/were just as bad". If the conduct of these partisan groups is mentioned as a fact and nothing more, then there might be room for it. If it is used for a justification, then they should not go in. And certainly it shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two. If you want to have a separate article on the political breakdown and conflict inside the Ottoman Empire then fair enough. But really we're talking about the massacres/genocide. There is no room for caveats in the Nanjing Massacre page, the Holocaust, etc so why should a similar page about Armenians have to have lots about how Armenians "were as much to blame", etc? I'm not saying that you're trying to make that happen, but that is the danger if your idea is taken too far. John Smith's 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer your last question. Holocaust is totally proved and the Germans accepted it, but the Armenian "genocide" is not proved and is not accepted by Turkey.

There are links to things like the "Armenian Militia" already, but they have no content. Why don't you spend your time adding content to those places? It would be more helpful than starting another content dispute here, which may happen even if you don't want one. John Smith's 11:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If the point of any wikipedia article is to present info in a "just" and "correct" way, then the things I mentioned need to have a place in this article as a background information. There are real facts that affected the happening of an historical event. There is a section already in this article called "The situation of the Armenians in Anatolia", which is historically situated by previous editors before the event. So this information can easily be inserted there. A well prepared paragraph with good sources shouldn't be a problem. --Gokhan 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of contention here is whether or not the events of 1915 onwards constitutes genocide. The problem facing those that support the genocide thesis is that their reasoning and supporting evidence is flawed in many instances. For example, it is a matter of fact that the Armenians enjoyed a special status as loyal subjects amongst the various communities of the empire. Towards the latter part of the empire's existance, Armenians held various positions of stature within the government structure. It seems odd that such a well integrated community would suddenly be singled out for genocide. Furthermore, the alleged genocide occured whilst the empire was at its weakest point. If the Ottoman Turks truly had a desire of ridding itself of the Armenians, it would have made much more sense for it to occur in the 16th century, at the height of its power. If we look at history, genocidal killings occur when the perpetrators are at the peak of their power, not when they are at their weakest point. Another misleading accusation of the genocide supporters is that the rebellion in Van was sparked by news that the central government had ordered relocation of the local Armenians. The uprising occured in April 1915, way before the central government issued relocation orders! The true reason behind the rebellions was the evil revolutionary committees that persuaded the local community that they would have their own land and that the Russian army was within striking distance! So the motivation was plain and simple greed and I say this because the Armenians were generally well disposed in the empire. These are just examples amongst many of discrepencies with the arguments of those that support the genocide thesis! Lutherian 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is totally irrelevent, initiated by the same person that launched an RfD on this article. There is no point of contention here, we users are not here to determine anything but simply write an encyclopedia. This point isen't getting accross, and I will not start questioning the intelligence of some users for not comprehending what an encyclopedia is and what is the purpouses of Wikipedia, but simply say that if you are not here to contribute in the writting of articles, you have no place here. We are not in a forum and it isen't that forums are missing. BTW, just one correction, the first official order of evacuation of the Armenians wasn't after April, but March 2, and you will find this in the so-called 'Osmanli Belgelerinde Ermeniler, 1915-1920' (Ankara 1994), pay attention to the second document, it's dated Marche 2. As for the rest, if you pay attention, I have decided to ignore anything that is not even remotly related to the article. Fad (ix) 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. We are just trying to keep this encyclopedia correct and just. The thing to be critisized is your intelligence not ours since you are trying to conceal the unjustness of this article by accusing people. I am simply trying to contribute to this article by removing it's unjustness and you are not the one to critisize my existence here. On another point, using derogetory words is not the way of a kind user and I believe THEY are the ones who are not needed here in Wikipedia. Nuage bulut 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, questioning the intelligence of someone that still doesn't get how Wikipedia work after explaining him countless numbers of time isen't a personal attack. Wikipedia isen't here to tell what the truth is, neither has the 'justfullness' in the context of an encyclopedia is relevant. The position that a genocide happened does exist, a position accepted by most historians in the West. Wikipedia collect positions no matter of what the truth is or not. That the position that a genocide occured does exist, and has a place in Wikipedia and no one can do anything about this. This article has also a large section covering the Turkish government position. Fad (ix) 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia has to rethink its rules. It's obvious that your claim "wikipedia is not here to tell the truth" is just your very opinion, though. and I assume it wouldn't be a personal attack if I called you "lame" because of it. If what you said was actually true, then Wikipedia would have no EDIT Button.

Either way, I am not here to discuss what the aim of Wikipedia is. So while aswering to my statements, try not to go out of the subject as it gets really boring to read a long reply that doesn't respond to even one of my points. Nuage bulut 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As I stated to you earlier, im not here to contribute articles (although that may change), im here to help fix all the misleading comments scattered throughout the article Lutherian 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where have you done that, the only thing you officially removed, you yourself haven't denied its accuracy(the Turkish human right organization), but when I documented it, you had gone accusing them as PKK supporters and demonized them, as if demonizing them will make of the organization non-existing thosefor as something that should not be included. You are debating about your interpretations and not about the article and if whatever or not the positions presented exist or not. Fad (ix) 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear Fadix, first of all, it was Gokhan who pointed out about the terrorist links, secondly all I asked from you is an official recognition from the site itself, which you were unable to provide. Instead you came up with half baked arguments that the co founder supported the genocide thesis etc. I asked for the THR to be removed from the list because there is no proof that it recognizes the so called genocide. Maybe you have telepathy in which case I would appreciate it if you could share the trick with us!!! Lutherian 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does the site contain any section about their official position? I haven't only presented the position of the co-founder, but rather also pointed to the fact that his publishing house is the major center of the organizations published material. It's extention in Germany each April 24 take part in the commemoration of the genocide. And we have a published source saying it recognize it. There are sufficiant references that the organization does recognize it, but you refuse them. Fad (ix) 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter in what epoch the genocide occurred? Why didn't the French slaughter the Jews in the early 1800s? After all, Napoleon was at the height of his power, there were wars being waged in Europe, things were perfect and no one would have suspected a thing.=| The fact is that although Ottoman rulers were generally cruel and harsh, they had no desire to destroy the Armenians; most probably because they were merchants and made up a crucial part of the economy. It doesn't matter if the Armenians were killed at the height of Turkish power or at its lowest.

Are you suggesting that the French slaughtered Jews during WW2? Well thats news to me because AFAIK, the French where just collaborators who sent Jews to the Nazi killing machine. The ones who physically joined the slaughter where further to the East most of whom are the newest entrants into the EU. And I cant believe that you are suggesting that the Armenian subjects where tolerated throughout the life of the empire mainly for strategic reasons, there is more than ample evidence that the Armenian community enjoyed a special status within the empire. Many held very high positions within the government, sorry but your hate theory just does not hold! The Nazis started slaughtering Jews at the peak of their power just like the Spanish killed, converted or expelled their Jewish subjects during the height of their religious rule. Your example with their French is just plain silly! Lutherian 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised why you don't mention that the "uprisings" in Van and elsewhere were intentionally provoked by Ottoman military units (raping and killing women and children, killing men, the crippled) at the behest of the government to give off a distorted image and excuse that a rebellion was occuring (Armenians fought back and hence Turkish soldiers were killed which were the perfect excuse to be used); a view that was unanimously rejected by the European and American diplomats, mainly the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. Ambassador Morgenthau even wrote in his memoirs that Turkish leaders even went to Van and asked that they (Armenians) go to Russia and stir revolutionary feelings to cause a rebellion against the Russian empire. The consensus is that there was no rebellion in 1915. --MarshallBagramyan 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop portraying the Armenians as innocent bystanders going on with their life peacefully and in total harmony until one day the Ottoman Turks decided to exterminate them. The Armenians were the evildoers, they were armed to their teeth when the rebellions started, there is an abundance of evidence that shows this. Im not saying that the Turks were totally innocent, bloodshed begets bloodshed but I damn well will defend the Turkish view if you and your team mates continue to make fictitious claims like the ones you did above Lutherian 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, cool off guys. I'm not trying to start a debate here. I understand your sentimental reaction and won't get into a discussion. I've read this article and discussions. I learned your point of view. I also already mentioned I'm not trying (or feel the need) to justify or belittle any suffering. I also didn't want to start a discussion for pleasure, I wanted to get your opinions about how to add some points to the article. So let's assume good faith on both sides.

I just want to explore what the operations of Armenian committees were during/before this period. And what happened to Turkish people in Anatolia at that time. I hope you don't think they all went to a killing frenzy and then lived happily everafter. There are also some massgraves of Turks found or witness accounts just as Armenian witness accounts exist. I believe some inter-communal violence also occured. There are some theories about the timing & locations of rebellions sync'ing with Russian incursions. I don't have sources now, that's why I wanted to ask you wikipedians instead of just "vandalizing" the article. I wanted to know if that was a possible addition to the article?

As there are people involved to which this article puts the blame on executing a genocide, focusing on one party and ignoring the rest as "so-called" or "irrelevant" doesn't sound fair to me. Or any contradictary sources always labelled as "made up by Turkish government" or "unreliable because the source's wife is Turkish"... Anyway there's no end to this discussion, and I got my response from some constructive comments from both sides, so let's finish this here. Thanks. --Gokhan 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the example of the French is to show how inane your logic is. Just because a nation is at its most powerful state doesn't mean it will then commit a genocide. The Tutsis and the Hutus were dirt poor in Rwanda but nothing stopped the Hutus from buying wholesale butcher knives and slaughering them. Yugoslavia was at the brink of economic breakdown in the 90s yet nothing stopped them from attacking and slaughtering the Bosnians. Pol Pot's regime was just recovering from the Vietnam War and they slaughtered millions of people with impunity. The Ottoman Empire had an easier time since its target was a defenseless population that was unfortunately all too eager and too willing to contribute men and supplies to the war effort.

It doesn't need any more explaining when you cite the fact that since there were no grossly violent acts against Armenians in 1915 (a false charge irregardless), then a Genocide in 1915 would never happend either. Its the reductio ad absurdum and quite a weak strawman. Nevermind the fact that there were the antecedants to the Genocide: the Hamidian massacres, the Adana massacre and the entire Tanzimat era that began in the 1840s to address the issue of improving Turkey's subject's rights. Yes some Armenian organizations advocated that the Ottoman government be overthrown; afterall, they had a pathetic record in regards to safeguarding peoples especially the Armenians and all the previous massacres only reinforced the conclusion that there was no safe protection if Armenians continued to live under Turkish rule.

you have no right to lessen the suffering of Moslems in the hands of the Armenians and their Russian supporters in the area. The only ones to blame for the massacres are your revolutionary committeese. It is a well documented fact that Armenains murdered hundreds of thousands of moslems the region simply due to greed (promise of land). Your claims have gone way over line and the complete disregard of moslems in this tragedy is a reflection of the general racist attitude and the policy of perpetual hatred against the Turks that your relatives have successfully convinced you of! 83.79.110.144 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know those mass graves are bodies of that of Turks and not of Armenians? Robert Fisk, a famous British journalist who has spend over 30 years in the Middle East actually travelled to Syria and actually uncovered the same mass graves near Aleppo and Deir-ez-Zor. Of the 1,000,000-1,500,000 Armenians living in Armenian prior to 1915 only 50,000 remain, 99% in Istanbul, what happend, if not Genocide? If it was just a simple two way streey, civil war, most Armenians would have returned by now and resettled back into their homes. --MarshallBagramyan 06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Marshall, what I try to say is very simple actually: You people keep saying denial means killing those people twice (as it's said in the turkish denial ad that is given in western media). But I also say making this thing a 100% planned genocide in black & white terms, condemning a whole nation with such an act and denying any Turkish loss of life (in the hands of Armenian committees and Armenian legions supported by Russia and France) is the same. If you believe in former, you should believe in the latter as well. If you're offended by the former, you should be offended by the latter. That is only what I'm saying. The burden could be more on the shoulders of Ottoman government, I can understand that. However for real peace, and I don't mean any french anti-denial law or canadian parliament decision or arnold schwarzenegger speach, we mutually need to respect each other's loss. The aim of any involved person should be this. That's my honest opinion. I hope you understand. --Gokhan 07:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a typical Armenain POV: anyone that supports the genocide is famous or unbaised or honorable or an authority on the matter or any comibination of the four whilst anyone that opposes this view is a paid agent of the Turkish state. You have to get over your soviet era view of things, its ridiculous! 83.79.110.144 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Marshall, Poll Pot was not Vietnamese and if your referring to the war, it was after the American's pulled out of Vietnam that Communism could grow stronger in the region. The American pull out left a power vacuum and the Communists filled this void and achieved the hight of their power during this period, hence the massacre's began.

The Ruandan situation is completely different one of the reason's was European theories of race that led to the Holocaust. These ideas were propagated by John Hanning Speke's initial work. Unlike the other mixed states of Africa, Rwandans were considered by Europeans to be on the border between Blacks and the "more noble" Hamites. Tutsis were viewed as Hamites and Hutus as inferior Bantus. This ingrained racism was reversed upon independence when the majority Hutus took to viewing the Tutsis as foreign invaders and not true Rwandans. Similar divisions have led to violence in other parts of northeast Africa.

In Britain, the allegations of Genocide have been rejected, I have researched the matter thoroughly and its evident from the arhive's that what happened cannot be called a genocide.

The Malta Tribunals were carried out by the Brittish, we had all the sources, document's and access to anything we wished. However, even with everything open to us after trying to Ottoman officials they were found not guilty.

The Brittish had no reason's to hide any evidence, quite the contrary anything reliable would have been used as they were a WW1 enemy.

Brittish propaganda operative's were busy doing there job during the war, promoting anti-Ottoman sentiment among the people, this is natural in a war. Howerver, what is disturbing is to see Armenian Extremists using clear War Propoganda as historical fact, just scratch the surface and you'll realise what a total and utter hoax it all is.

Stories of the "Terrible Turk", the "Barbarian's from the East", "sub-human monsters who ravage like locusts", "The kill all Christians in their path". Are just some of the ridiculous stories produced.

Its typical war-time propoganda.

The actual fact's however state, millions of Ottoman muslims in the Balkans, Eastern Anatolia and the Caucauses were brutally massacred and killed and in some area's totally ethnically cleansed.

There is an estimate of over 5 million being killed between 1840's-1920 and 6 million refugee's.

Its ridiculous to state that the Ottoman's carried out a systematic genocide, they had more important things to deal with such as fighting a global super power the Brittish and the French.

If you add to that the fact that Russia was invading from the East aswell as arming, training and funding Armenian Millitary organisations to rebel and fight for an Independant state you start to get the picture of what a sorry state the Ottomans were in.

They had to battle on all front's, the West, South, North and East.

Now, there was not a state funded racist and opressive program against Armenians in Ottoman-Armenian history. There were no previous hostilities between the Armenian and Muslim people's. The Ottoman's did not create state propoganda and write books and thesis' on why and how the Armenian nation should be destroyed or that they were inferior etc.

All this and alot more happened to Jews in the Holocoust plus alot, lot more.

The Ottomans were on the defensive, they were not the agressor's in the situation, they had every right to defend agaist the Russian and Armenian attack's, just like they fought against the Brittish, French and Greek.

If we all followed the Armenian extremists logic, the Ottomans comitted a genocide against the Brittish as we lost hundred's of thousands of men but then we would be ignoring that the Brittish interests in the region was occupation and colonisation and that hundreds of thousands infact millions of Turks died during the same war.

The reality is, more Turks died than all the invading force's put together.

I haven't heard any sympathy for their lost one's, any memorial's or recognition for their heroic defense of their homeland.

Its clear 1.5 million Armenians did not die, that figure is invented however the suffering of the millions of Turks in the same war that were killed have become the silent sufferers.

Armenians must face the terms that the pain they feel for their lost one's is equal to those Turks who lost their lost one's in the war.

That is why Great Britain has rejected the Armenian allegations and others will follow in our brave footsteps to challenge those who wish have no regard for history or facts.

Regards

JohnStevens5

Someone finally stated what I thought about this so called "genocide". I doubt it will really change others' minds, though. Since the "genocide" being a fact is what they seem to be fond of.

Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile

Is so called Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile an official int. body? If not why is it in official recognition list? If so, it means we can add all kinds of organisations to anywhere we want.--Hattusili 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, its a well known matter of fact that they have links to the PKK terrorist organization, go figure! Lutherian 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a registered organization, and this is the only thing that matters here. Fad (ix) 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, this made me laugh.. Nuage bulut 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean as registered? So if you are a terrorist organization and register yourself in a country that sympathizes with you, that makes you official? Thats what I call premium camel fodder! 83.79.110.144 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Call it terrorist, devil incarnate and whatever you want to make of that organization, doesn't change the fact that it exist and it do recognize it. It is not the 'terroristism' of an organization which excludes it from Wikipedia, and this no matter if it happens that one of its members killed Princess Diana. Fad (ix) 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TAT is a personal website registered under a proxy, while on the other hand we have a registered organization which you want to exclude. TAT has copied materials from the newgroups from 'Multu' aka his various alias, the historic newsgroup spammer who even has an entry about him on Wikipedia. Various of those materials have been tracked to be total fabrications the fruit of Multu's immagination which were recycled by so-called Holdwater. He also recycled materials from a forum member calling himself Ismet the Historian who sarcastically was inventing quotes, quotes that were admitted poetry by the author himself. Holdwater also slanders various academics as well as place racial slurs. He present his supposed formula which is Turk=Truth and tells reader to have this formula in mind. He provides supposed genetic bases of inferiority to Armenians, in this very same site(Wikipedia), under his alias Torque, claimed that what he has been saying about Armenians 'true nature' (characters) isen't racism but simply the truth. The exclusion of TAT has been widely supported and I have justified it in various occasion. You do not deny the factuality of the information that the Kurdish organization do recognize the genocide, on the other hand, I have shown that the materials Holdwater present in his site, various of them don't even exist. This is not about whatever or not I accept the position maintained and supported by the author, but rather the fact that various materials presented do not exist and I have provided many examples to the author himself, but yet knowing well that those do not exist, he still maintain them in his site. Fad (ix) 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they even deserve to be in the list of groups recognising genocide, when their declaration does not even mention genocide, but only massacres? --A.Garnet 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The declaration recognize that the Ottoman government planed those massacres, so it does qualify as recognition. Fad (ix) 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Geez, Fadix, you display a complete lack of tact, the list of organizations are those that recognize and accept the term "GENOCIDE", not massacres not killings not anything else. The point that Garnet is making here is that this terrorist organization recognizes the events as a massacre, capiche? Lutherian 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making things up, there is a difference between calling it Armenian massacre, and massacres of Armenian, the Turkish government doesn't recognize it as a massacre, it claims that there was some excess by Kurds. The organization called it the Armenian massacre and say it has been planned by the government, which is considered as a recognition. Fad (ix) 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or the Armenian Massacre)

The declaration recognize that the government planned those massacres, it recognize the intentionalist position of the nature of the massacres. Fad (ix) 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting point, I didnt realize that genocide could be interchanged with massacre, thats a first because there is more than a subtle difference between a genocide and a massacre. As a matter of fact, the Turkish government goes as far as calling the events a massacre so where's the beef? Lutherian 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thats what happens when you rush into things but in the case of Fadix, im afraid he is not being honest with himself! Lutherian 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what is to be made of the footnote for the PKE from Cilicia.com considering its contents are very different from the ANI version of the statement? --A.Garnet 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Armin Wegner photo usage

I wanted to mention that I have gotten permission to use the Wegner photos on Wikipedia under the conditions they specified on my talk page. You can use the copies off of Armeniapedia.org, or if you have better copies can use them. --RaffiKojian 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Official Recognition

I removed the speculations on why the US and Israel do not recognize Armenian genocide claims. Unless you back it up with official statements from spokespersons for these countries these are simply POV. If this to be allowed, by the same token, one can argue that the states that recognize Armenian claims, do it mainly due to the strong Armenian diaspora lobby and internal politics, e.g., what's happening in France nowadaysDeepblue06 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not speculation when it comes to saying it is not recognized due to fear of Turkish reprisals/offense and more importantly fear that military base usage will not be extended/allowed use, etc. These are the exact arguements used in discussions of the issue in congress, by the US Presidents/State Dept when asking congressmen to leave the issue alone. There should be some sources for this out there - especially in congressional sources. Nobody argues that it shouldn't be recognized because it didn't happen. --RaffiKojian 02:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, as deep blue pointed out, we should add that France recognizes the Armenian genocide due to the influence of the powerful Armenian lobby, because it is as valid as your argument that countries like the US and Isreal dont recognize it for strategic reasons. Your claims that the only superpower in the world doesnt recognize the genocide because of fears of Turkish repraisals is just plain silly. Did the recognition of the so called "genocide" by a number of countries have any materially negative consequences on them? Do I have to remind you that the cold war is over? Lutherian 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, two pages which have direct quotes backing up the reasons why the genocide claims are not accepted are on the ANCA website. I know you will not find the ANCA as NPOV, but the veracity of the quotes is what is in question, and I don't think anyone would deny them. For example, Indiana Republican Dan Burton, called attention to a September 15th letter to Committee Chairman Hyde, expressing the State Department's opposition to the measures. The letter noted that, "House floor debate on an Armenia resolution could damage U.S.-Turkish relations and could undermine progress by Ankara and Yerevan as they begin quiet talks to address the issue and look to the future." See [4] and [5]. --RaffiKojian 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Again thats speculation/conjecture, look for example at the countries that recognize the so called "genocide"! Last time I checked, trade between Turkey and France was doing very well, thank you very much! I dont know where you get your wishfull thinking fantasies that Turkey will one day accept to recognize a monumental lie and at the same time help improve the sorry condition of modern day Armenia. Now please tell me, what kind of preverse reasoning is that? Lutherian 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Georgian quote was used as an example, the statement did not try to mislead the reading thinking this is the view of the US or Israel. Chaldean 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but ANCA sources do not cut it. It's not a neutral source on this subject as you pointed out to begin with and it does not directly cite an official for the State Department. There are only few individuals that can make official statements for the State Department (e.g, Secretary of State, Under Secretaries, Deparment of State spokesperson, etc). Furthermore, there is not a single reason why the US, Israel and alike do not accept genocide claims. Even if the ties with Turkey was one of them that is not sufficient to claim that it's the main reason. Simply, you cannot objectively rule out that they are not convinced to warrant the g-word.

More importantly, if one is allowed to discuss the motives of the countries that don't accept genocide claims then the motives of countries that passed genocide legislations should be also discussed. I can find hundreds of respected news articles relating the genocide legislations in these countries and Armenian diaspora's effect on domestic elections. Let's consider the case of France: In 2001, the first bill was passed coinciding with the domestic elections, 5 years later, the second bill is being discussed just ahead of the upcoming elections. It's simply cheap politicians trying to secure ethnic-Armenian votes as opposed truly believing in genocide. Don't you think why all of suddent these cheap politicians remember genocide just before the elections. I can cite many respectable sources (e.g., Le Figaro, Liberation of France) that will relate the motives of the socialist party to the domestic elections on this matter.

When one lists countries that passed genocide bills, it's no coincidence that all of them have significant presence of Armenian diaspora. For example, this explains why Argentina passed a legislation but Brazil did not, or why no East Asian state (e.g., China, India, Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, etc) passed similar legislations or any African nation for that matter.Deepblue06 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are writting does not make much sense. While I agree that the version there was POV, deleting it entirly is also POV. That the US does not recognize it because of pressure is even not denied by its representatives. Have you actually watched the discussions on the floor and the reasons to not present it? What about Hastert exclusion for placing it to be voted? Not so long ago, there was even sources accusing him to have been pied to remove it from vote and the last one too has still to be placed for vote(and guess what, no, the source is not Armenian). Clinton himself had recieved a phone call by the president of the republic of Turkey the day it was supposed to be voted, and as a result it was removed before it got on the floor to be voted. Here in Canada before the last one that passed, the other was removed just before it had to be voted AFTER the prime minister recieved a call from Ankara. This is pretty well documented and not "Armenian propaganda". Also, you can not draw a cause and effect just because there is a correlation. For instance, you imply and even on the limit claim that the governments that recognize it do it because they have an important Armenian minority and to get votes. While the submition of the bill on a parlement before it get voted might be caused by this, passing it on vote and approving it is entirly another story. For example, when one point to the large Armenian minority in France, one might think that there is a clear advantages for recognizing it. But is it so? While France has near 500,000 Armenians residing there, it also has about 400,000 Turks, excluding Azeris. Coupled to this, all the contracts threatned to be canceled and finally cancelled, the threats of recalling of the ambassadors, all the waves with Turkey supposed official recognition of an Algerian Genocide etc., the boycotting of French products, and as a result those affected by all this voting against the party who mostly voted to pass such a bill, the Armenian minority of 500,000 is not sufficient pretext to justify such a decision. What about Germany? It has over 2 million Turks residing there. It really is not as simple as you want to convince yourself. The only country that the issue is not as clear cut, it is Israel, since Israel also boycott the recognition of other genocides and this is rather a maintenance of the thesis of Uniqueness of the Holocaust. But there is not to be denied that the pressures on Israel are just more than Armenian propaganda. The Israeli minister of education who created the whole conflict between Israel and Turkey over the attempt to include the Armenian genocide with the Holocaust in the curriculum of schools, and after the intense pressures from the Government of Turkey disgusted he closed the door and left his job. The Israeli accademic Yair Auron document this pressure and the fear of losing its first allie in the region in his book. [6] Just speaking of pressure, just recently Turkey recalled its ambassador in Canada after the prime minister said that he stend by the bill. Now, you have yet to compare those threats and documented intimidations with the little advantages the Armenians coulds have in an elections. Besides the new bill in France making the denial illegal is not supported by every Armenians, I for oppose to any bills restricting freedom of position. I don't see how such a bill would benefit a party in any way when passing it has more negative repercussions for the government in places than opposing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2006.

Your reasoning is absurd, the large majority of Turks living in countries like Germany tend to be poorly educated blue collar workers, and a large portion within this minority are ethnic Kurds who tend to hold hostile views on Turkey. Your memory span also seems to be short term, less than 20 years ago your trigger happy compatriots were going around murdering diplomats and blowing up public places to make a point. Stanford Shaw, a well respected professor of history had to cancel his lectures in LA regarding the role of Turkey during WW2 because of bomb threats by Armenian fanatics. The Armenians have adopted a very arrogant style in dealing with this topic which has done nothing other than keeping it in a deadlock situation. Turks which have suffered immesureably in the hands of Armenians will never recognize a lie that is being imposed on them! 81.62.133.82 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in your paragraph says it all. Turks suffered in hands of Armenians?:)) That's just silly. There is a saying in Russian that the best defence is offence. Thus, the best strategy to defend yourselves is to attack. That's what Turkey along with its' "patriots" does, when it hears any Genocide claims. Furthermore, I believe they placed a memorial in Turkey for "50-60 thousand" turks that died "in hands of Armenians" in 1915.

As for France and Canada recognizing the Armenian Genocide, it is known that Turkey broke a miltibillion military contract with France just b/c France accepted the Genocide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.72.211.36 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2006.

So lets analyze your reasoning which goes something like this : Since I am defending the Turkish view of the events, I must be on the payroll of the Turkish government just like the historians who side with the Turkish view. In fact I probably receive monthly encrypted government guidelines on how to confront you guys, what arguements to use etc. And its impossible that I might have formed my own opinion on this subject matter after investigating both sides of the allegations because, surely, someone who sides with the Turkish view must either lack enough intelligence to form a balanced opinion, is a hard core nationlist grey wolf groupie or has been recruited and brainwashed by the Turkish secret service. I mean how would someone in their right mind oppose the views of a sacred people who see themselves as divine? After all, theirs is the most ancient of civilizations, the birthplace of christianity and even maybe culture itself! I mean how dare we argue with the chosen ones? Especially considering that we are siding with the clearly inferior moslem barbarians ummm sorry, I meant Turks! Tsk tsk! 85.0.33.235 17:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would highly recommend you to relax, and take a deap breath. Your racist, nationalistic, armenophobic views are obvious from your "I mean how dare we argue with the chosen ones? Especially considering that we are siding with the clearly inferior moslem barbarians ummm sorry". I don't really care who you are, and who you are working for, but your writing style is a reflection of turkish anti-armenian propaganda. Sure, you have the right to have your own subjective objection, I mean, your subjective opinion. But before you come up with you "opinion", you should do some research and find out how the term genocide was introduced by Lemkin, and what he was influenced by when he came up with that term.

Why don't you just leave this place. Your statement "Turks suffered in hands of Armenians?:))" shows just how uninformed you are on the subject. Do you just have fun getting in disputes? I don't think any Wikipedia article needs such ignorant people.

Most of what is said above is just speculation (e.g., Hastert getting paid for exclusion, phone calls, etc) some of which might well be true or reasonable but cannot be proved: Proving means officials making official statements, not third parties making allegations. Again, only Secretary of State or authorized Department of State spokeperson can officially comment on the US foreign policy, the rest will be making just speculations. Don't get me wrong. I'm not claming that these speculations are all unreasonable. However they cannot be included. If we open this door then the other side should be allowed to comment on why France and others are passing legislation bills.

You are right there is also a significant ethnic-Turkish population in Europe. But they are not as much obsessed with this issue as Armenian diaspora and they put very little effort if any. This issue does not rank high in the lives of Turks in Europe whereas for most Armenians this issue is a part of their identity (I heard this description from many Armenian scholars, correct me If I'm wrong). Therefore Armenian diaspora have a much stronger determination on this issue and they have a louder voice in France than the Turks living there.

Yes, Turkey temporarily recalled its ambassadors and threatens (though not officially yet) to cancel government contracts. But this does not have immediate effect on Canada's or France's domestic politics and these cheap politicians care only about the domestic politics, i.e., getting relelected in the short term, as opposed to the long term interests of France and Canada. So, these cheap politicians don't care as much about what Turkey does as the voice of Armenian diaspora. Deepblue06 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Art Part

First time I learned about the Armenian Genocide was when I read 'Bluebeard' by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. As he is one of the best-known authors in the world I positively think a reference to that book should be included in the 'Art' part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.111.236.148 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 May 2006.

Here's My Question, Why when a Country is about to accept the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, Turkey comes and Threatnes them Politicaly? Why Change History with Politics? Is it because Turkey is afraid that 1 day the Genocide will be recognized and that people are going to know what Turkish people realy are? A country that has been denying history since 91 years and yet continueing. The TRUE propaganda is coming from the Turkish Government and not by the Armenians. Oh and why are there some Turkish people forcing they're OWN government to accept the Genocide?

Actually, it is the Turkish position that history should be left to historians, rather than politicians trying to settle the issue. Hence arranging conventions and such. Somebody will bring up the prosecution of the authors but I would remind them that was a private prosecution and quite beyond Government control.

How many politicians in those countries that have recognised this do you really think have read a book about it? How many of them do you think even bothered reading the bill they were voting yes to?

Let us not pretend the Armenians are not afraid of historical debate on this issue - they run around hysterically trying to associate this with Holocaust denial, thus associating anyone who disagrees with their thesis as a Holocaust denier. That tactic is clear to see up and down this page, and on the article. How many historians have been prosecuted, harassed, ransacked, bombed, threatened, had their professional integrity attacked, had their lectures halted?

unbeliviabely vandalised and biased page

I have read all the discussion pages and saw that the there is enough evidence to show that this "genocide" is "at least" exagerated. But the final version shows it as a fact and shows the opposing views as unimportant propaganda. actually it will not be fair to say that the opposing view is there at all. if you read the previous discussion pages you will see that there are several people who are there for 2 years. despite the fact that many of their claims and resources are shown to be false by another contributer they always come up with a simmilar page. this is obviously an unethical act showing that these people are here only for the sake of propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 May 2006.

There can be no discussion on a fact. A fact of is a Fact. The fact that the Genocide happenned cannot be disputed. There can be questions about the reasons and the number of deaths, but not the actual fact of Genocide. Did you, by any chance, use deductive reasoning to come up with your "conclusion" that the fact of "genocide is at least exagurated"? It seems like you have... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.72.211.36 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2006.

Sorry but really, who do you think you are? Have you travelled back through time and seen the Genocide happening? Your overconfident speech is as though you have. Turkey has very strong evidences regarding the fact that it was NOT a genocide yet you can claim that it is an inarguable fact. I am sure that you didn't even bother looking through the evidences of Turkey, though. Since you seem to be fond of the "the genocide is a fact" statement.

Its a matter of fact that the individuals of that tragic period in history who accuse the Ottoman Turkish government of giving explicit orders to exterminate the Armenians are liars of the most vile kind. Most of the so called evidence comes from individuals who lacked integrity and frequently were racist. These included the so called missionaries well scattered in the Eastern parts of Anatolia and who totally disregarded human life except those of the christian faith. Others were shown to be gamblers, thugs, criminals, drunkards. This topic is a disgusting attack on Turkishness. It is high time to bring the real truth out into the open. The one about how the Armenians betrayed the Ottomans especially considering that the Armenians enjoyed a highly privilaged status as a community in the empire. It is clear in my mind that this site is racially motivated! 85.0.33.235 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends now and before I have chosen my words very carefully not to offend anyone. It is a fact that many people have died. As a human being we should really respect their memories. However when it comes to naming the issue as "Genocide" that is a matter of dispute. Genocide is regarded as the highest crime and is decribed by international law. it has many components but most important is the intention to eradicate a human population just only because of their ethnic identitiy. when i read all the resorces and discussions that i could, i see that this deportaion is partial and done because of the armenian uprising and their support to an enemy army(whic is not presented in the article). We may say that the action taken is too much, unfair and monstorious and caused an immense human loss. Still It is not enought to name the issiue as a genocide.

this is alread well documented in the previous discussion pages. Yet this view is not present in the article. And very same people who are dominising this page came up with a single point of view. This is I guess a kind of Vandalisation.

I want to repeat that genocide is the ultimate crime and has its consequences. its shame will pass upon generations. We should think very carefully before putting that burden on a country and its people. this "genocide" nomenclature is wrong despite it has been used for years. (neurobio)

Photos

The images included in the article are questionable. One needs to prove that these pictures do indeed belong to people of Armenian origin who are massacred (or the target of genocide) in the Ottoman Empire during the disputed time period. Otherwise listing them as "Armenian Genocide" photos is not credible. Deepblue06 04:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to upload the Armin Wegner photos, which are very well documented, if it makes you feel better, and we can discuss which of those to include. --RaffiKojian 05:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I don't oppose including photos, but you cannot label them as genocide photos. One needs to prove that these pictures do indeed belong to people of Armenian origin who are massacred (or the target of genocide) in the Ottoman Empire during the disputed time period. Deepblue06 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know who Armin Wegner is? 24.79.43.137 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When a reporter from ATA-USA Magazine inquired about the documentation of the Wegner photos to the director of the German museum where the Wegner photo originals are housed (Stuttgart's Schiller-Nationalmuseum Deutsches Literaturarchiv), the director replied:

“Unfortunately, we do not have any indication regarding when or in what country the Wegner photographs were taken. As a result, the dating, and sites depicted must be determined by whoever uses the photos.’’ Deepblue06 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is Wegner's testimony who affirms where and what he saw this. He wrote several books on this during the 1930s didn't he? especially a letter beseeching Adolf Hitler to cease his treatment with the Jews. Who or what is ATA-USA?....EDIT....nevermind, it appears our good friend DeepBlue is using tallarmeniantale.com, a website that is renowned for making up evidences. Do you have any other reasonable sources?--MarshallBagramyan 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've already had "demand an inappropriate standard of proof" here, no need to repeat the error. We know what Wegner supposed that his photographs showed and he wrote books to tell the world what he'd seen. The burden of proof rests on those who would challenge the accepted interpretation. Just in case it's on your crib-list of debating techniques, a chain of custody is not required. The appropriate standards of proof are historiographical, not jurisprudential. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhat funny that according to your logic, the burden always fall on the ones who does not buy Armenian claims at their face value. Deepblue06 00:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition: Western Scholars

Deepblue06 edit that needs to be disussed before incorporating anything into the main article:

Almost all Turkish intellectuals, scientists and historians accept that many Armenians died during the conflict, but they do not necessarily classify these events as genocide. Many renowned western historians like Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Halil Inalcik (member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences), Gilles Veinstein (College de France), and Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham) also consider these events as unsettled history. They point that the weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. They acknowledge that the resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense, but much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. [7]

Hi Deepblue06. This article, if you look through the history, has been developed with massive amounts of careful (and often heated) debate. This edit of yours is a big change in the article, which you need to discuss before making edits. You also need to discuss before removing materials (about the Canadian PM for example), and can also go back to the archives and see great deals of conversation about photos. --RaffiKojian 05:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the speech of Canadian PM, I'm not opposed to adding it, but I don't see any value of doing it. Canada is already included in the list of countries who has Armenian genocide legistlations. It's just redundant to repeat the speech of the Canadian PM. Deepblue06

Obviously someone didn't find it redundant to add specifics, especially when it led to the temporary recall of the Turkish Ambassador. Now I am not saying it must stay, or shouldn't stay - I am saying however that your removal of the material without discussion is not cool. --RaffiKojian 07:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, adding it without discussion was not cool either :). Again, I don't oppose adding it. But seriously, I don't think it adds any value. Deepblue06 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But mainly, I want to emphasize that you should probably discuss any changes here, before touching the article. In specific response to this text above - I would like to raise some serious issues I have with it, before others jump in and comment. "Many renown hsitorians like"... is misleading in that 1) you have listed every single one that could be considered "renown" - so there are no others, the list does not go on like you imply 2) most of those names are not at all renown, and Heath Lowry for example, is completely disgraced[8] 3) You include a Turk (who I've never heard of), who for this discussion, as far as I can tell, cannot be considered "western" no matter where they are locate, since I believe Armenians are excluded on the same basis (on this issue, I could be mistaken). So on this point, all you have left after taking my points into consideration is simply, "There are two prominent western historians who consider these events unsettled history, Bernard Lewis (Princeton University) and Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville)." The rest of the text, which does not do a bad job of summarizing their position (ludicrous as I find it) belongs squarely in the genocide denial section. McCarthy's oft-quoted statistic that 2.5 million muslims died during the same time is just ridiculous, since it includes Kurds who died of natural causes, Turks who died fighting Australians in Gallipoli, and Arabs who died for god knows what reason anywhere in the empire - while the Armenian population of Anatolia dropped virtually 100% due to actions directly ordered by the central government. McCarthys links to the Turkish government also go pretty deep. So I will wait to see what the others say, but at this point, your edit cannot stand as is. --RaffiKojian 05:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

These edits were already discussed and nobody contested it in principle (See Archieve 9 Point 33). I'm just stating the facts. These are the historians who have different views and here are their views. To remind you the title of the section is Opposition. The opposition section should include the views of historians who hold differen views. What's the purpose of the opposition section otherwise?

The listed scholars are not the only scholars who considers this part of the history unsettled. There are many others: 69 renowned historians issued a declaration pointing what I included in the article (You can look at May 19 1985 issue of New York Times or Washington Post for the list, I'll be happy to provide the whole list, if needed). I consider a chaired history professor serving at universities like Princeton and Columbia as "renowned" historian. But I'm not obsessed about this adjective, you can drop it, if that's a deal breaker.

The Turkish historian, Halil Inalcik, included in the list is one of the most well known Ottoman historians. He had a chair at University of Chicago before retirement. He's still the member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is quite prestigous (there are very few historians who accomplish this achievement in their lifetime). With regard to Heath Lowry, nobody ever questioned his academic findings, or scholarship. He was targeted by the Armenian lobby due to accepting funding from Turkish government. Again, nobody ever disproved or discredited his research. Deepblue06 06:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a big problem with the word renown, please look it up. I also have the list of historians who support the Turkish thesis with corresponding information on what money they have recieved from the Turkish government (not that this rules them out from being honest, but it does open questions). That, actually, was not the problem with Heath Lowry - if you care to follow the link and read the articles. He became infamous for drafting a genocide-denial letter for the Turkish Ambassador, and in his exchange[9] it is seems clear to me that neither he nor the Turkish ambassador doubt that genocide took place (so perhaps we should put in the the category of accepting the genocide?).

I read your articles: Prof Lowry and Turkish Ambassador clearly don't accept genocide claims. Prof Lowry was targetted by the Armenian lobby because he helped Turkish ambassador draft a letter. However, nobody ever disproved his research or scholarship.

Let's stick to the main question. Does Heath Lowry have a different view? YES. Is there anything included in the article that's not factually correct? NO. Is it relevant for the OPPOSITION section of the article? YES. Now, feel free to include another section to discuss the motives of these scholars if you like. But then the motives of the scholars who accept the claims needs to be discussed as well and we'll do that. For example, Taner Akcam listed in the academic recognition, who does not have sufficient credentials in history (the guy has a sociology PhD from a German university) and who's employed by the help of Armenian lobby as a 'visiting' professor at University of Minnesota. May be, one also needs to talk about his troubled past with Turkey even before he got interested in these issues. But I believe these things should not have a place in an encyclopaedia. Let's just state the facts and don't speculate for both sides. I dropped the word 'renowned' from the article. Well, actually it's funny, how well-known Princeton, Columbia, College de France professors don't deserve the adjective if they don't accept genocide claims, but I don't think there is any point fighting this war, so I drop the adjective renowned.

I'm getting the impression that you cannot stand opposing ideas even in the OPPOSITION section of the article. You seem insecure about listing the names of scholars and their view in the Opposition Section of the article. Deepblue06 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The authors of the article about this matter in the prestigious Holocaust and Genocide Studies by well respected genocide historians, in addition to the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, NY Times, etc all show what was going on behind the scenes. As for putting a Turkish historian on a list of "Western Scholars", I have no problem with it if Dadrian, Hovanissian, Balakian and others Armenians are treated the same. I am obviously not the only one with issues with your edit - so again, even if it has been discussed in the past, it needs to be discussed again. --RaffiKojian 07:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts and the main question. This's an encyclopaedia. This is the opposition section of the article. One needs to list the opposing scholars and their view, as simple as that. Here are the scholars that have different views and here's their views, just facts, no speculation. These scholars say the following (word-by-word): "The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy, which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. " Source: New York Times May 19, 1985.

Feel free to add any ethnic-Armenian scholar in the Academic recognition section, I've no problem with that (by the way Balakian is not a historian, he's an English professor). Again, this is not the western scholar's section, it's the opposition section. If this list would include Armenian scholars then it needs to be moved to the Academic recognition section. Deepblue06 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

uhhh, we could also add Standford Shaw on the list and last time I checked, he was a western scholar. As for the rest of your text Mr. Kojian, the fact of the matter remains that there is no concrete evidence written or otherwise that the Ottoman goverment of the time gave explicit or even implicit instructions to exterminate the community of Armenians for racial reasons. Until a time comes where there is substantiative proof that such instructions were given, it is totally misleading to coin the term genocide to the tragic events that unfolded in 1915-16. And it doesnt matter if there were a zillion eyewitnesses who funny enough all turn up to be christians, the most famous of which was Lepsius the racist protestant who was obsessed with preserving the "good image" of Germany. 83.78.110.210 06:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No evidence? Oh brother. Have you read the article? Believe me, every Armenian in Anatolia did not commit suicide to make Muslims look bad, and Germany look good. I'm glad you admit though that you don't care if there were a zillion eyewitnesses, since you know better than the people who saw it with their own eyes. --RaffiKojian 07:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point which is that your sources of the period in question may very well have been biased maybe? You have to get rid of the typical mindset of : if it supports the genocide thesis, it must be an objective, unbiased source! If not, it has to be someone that is in the Turkish goverment payrolls! This approach of yours and most of those that support the genocide thesis is far from being constructive and is one of the reasons that this issue is not being addressed properly! 83.78.110.210 08:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Addressed properly? Go ahead and address this. Did the population of Armenians in Anatolia drop from around 2 million to around zero during WWI and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey? And did that drop in population take place due directly to actions of Ottoman/Turkish authorities? Yes or no. No maybes, no yes but, no nothing else. There is no justification for genocide, and we don't even need Christian eyewitnesses to tell us that the Armenians are gone - while the Turks and Kurds were fruitful and multiplied. --RaffiKojian 09:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all your figure on the number of Armenians in Anatolia is grossly exagerated, Ottoman census figures before the war put the total at below 1 million in the eastern provinces. Even the Armenian patriarchate put the figure slightly above a million so I dont know where you dug that ridiculous sum from (could be your mind playing tricks which happens when you are exposed to too much propaganda)! As for the numbers dropping close to zero, if its the eastern provinces you are referring to, its what seems to have happened as a result of relocation. Have you even bothered to read through the information provided from the Ottoman archives in the links under the section on those that oppose the genocide thesis? If not, it would very well explain your flawed opinion on this subject! 83.78.110.210 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In theory the edit is not so bad. But the problem is that it only gives credance to those that say the events aren't "settled". There needs to be an equal amount of discussion on those that say these things did happen, at the very least. And, to be honest, the edit just throws names around - there's nothing in the articles to say that they have a particular position. John Smith's 12:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hellooo, this is the OPPOSITION section of the article. You can include the names of 'scholars' accepting it in the academic recognition section, I've no problem with that. These scholars exactly say the following in their declaration (word-by-word) "The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy, which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. " Source: New York Times May 19, 1985. Deepblue06

And why should there be an opposition (or support) section ? It seems to me that the whole "who says it was/wasn't genocide" section is dubious. In any case, the people named are generally not experts on the subject, which rather misses the point of WP:RS. That would make the section a fallacious appeal to authority. Without trying too hard, like looking up a relevant publication database, the LoC catalogue tells me that Lewis and Lowry's opinions are no more relevant than any randomly selected academic, that McCarthy's views are relevant, and that Hurewitz, Lewy and Shaw's are again not. One in six, which I have to say is rather better than I expected before I checked. The attempts by Deepblue06 (talk · contribs) — no connection to -Inanna- (talk · contribs) of course, but if your good faith was exhausted you might like to visit WP:RFCU — to "fix" things did not help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not going to discuss how ridiculous your statement is about the scholarship of these distinguished historians. But that's not the point. This's an encyclopaedia. This is the opposition section of the article. I did not add the opposition section to the article, it was already there. In this section, one needs to list the opposing scholars and their view, as simple as that. Here are the scholars that have different views and here's their views, just facts, no speculation. Deepblue06 14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the edit by Angus works quite nicely and ensures that these points can be kept in. But they need to be moved around, because they are in the Turkey sub-category. How are the comments of non-Turkish commentators relevant to this section? They should be moved, I think, so I'll try and put them where they should be. John Smith's 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They are sharing Turkey's point of view, that is, this is unsettled history and we cannot conclude genocide took place until historians prove it. So, I don't see any problem including their view in the subsection for Turkey's position. Deepblue06 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a copy of a letter that has been sent to US house of representatives. 192 Historiansare objecting to the term "genocide". In the text it is clearly stated that muslim loss is significant and as important!!! Still the article refers this immense opposing view as an unimportant fraction. So you say these historians from univercities all around US are not experts. And their objection is not worth mentioning. if the letter from Genocide scolars is there in the original text section this should be there too.(neurobio)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 May 2006.

File:Letter to representatives.jpg

historians object

Did you count the numbers of persons that signed it and how many are indeed historians? It is 69 persons not 192 and many aren't even historian, you are mistaking the number with the 192 petition who says that the genocide is undisputed. Also, Israel Charny investigated this petition and reported that from this numbers many recognized the genocide and that they were misled. Right now I have not much time, after Wednesday I plan to contribute to this article and finally finishing creating the 'Armenian Genocide revisionism' article. Fad (ix) 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are 69 signatories, most of them (almost all) are professors of history at respected universities. This is a public declaration of these distinguished scholars. If you want to remove anybody from the list (because you speculate that he/she was mislead), you can do it only if you can provide a public declaration of these individuals denying their earlier declaration. Deepblue06 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not requesting any names to be removed. What I am saying is that this was not a public declaration, those that organized the petition haven't informed the signatories that this petition would be made public. It was meant to be presented to revert the 192 bill. Besides, telling they are mostly historians isen't exactly right.

Examples here, Sarah Moment Atis is an Associate Professor of Turkish Language & Literature, Ilhan Basgoz was the Director of the Turkish Studies Program at the Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Daniel G. Bates is a Professor of Anthropology, Luke Bates is a Professor of Art History, Gustav Bayerie is a Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Andras G.E. Bodrogligetti is a Professor of Turkic & Iranian Languages, Kathleen BurriIl is a Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Timothy Childs is a Professorial Lecturer, Shafiga Daulet is an Associate Professor of Political Science, Walter Denny is a Professor of Art History &Near Eastern Studies, Alan Duben is an Anthropologist Researcher, Ellen Ervin is a Research Assistant Professor of Turkish, Tibor Halasi-Kun was a Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, William Hickman is a Associate Professor of Turkish, etc., etc. and etc. Those are few example. Most of all those 69 scholars had no published materials reffering to the Armenians in any way. 51 of the 69 had recieved either ARIT or ITS or both grants. Which from the Middle East list present that the very large majority had Turkish studies specialisation. It is like providing a list of Armenologist to support the Armenian genocide thesis. Besides, many of those scholars do recognize the genocide [10], and I already provided one scholar who I have read works and c9ould hardly be considered as someone not recognising the genocide. Fad (ix) 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

oh ok the number is 69 sorry. and thanks for clearifying that the profs. were so stupidly lured in to such a conspiracy and they were so dump that they did not take their signatures back once the issue is revealed. maybe they can not read at all. Are you insulting us or the Profs or yourself. Anyway I dont devote my whole life to a single issue. I just wish that naive users to get an unbiased info. It seems impossible though since highly motivated people such as yourself are here for over 2 years to make sure that what you say is there. I have read all the discussion history there is solid objections still nothing changes. I want to say that what you are doing is unethical in every sence. Goodluck with your quest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 May 2006

The article contains a large section dedicated to your position. Go try finding such a section in the Cambodian genocide article, the Nanking massacre article, Rwanda genocide article, the Holocaust article etc., there are scholars who refute those too, but for the sake of NPOVness I was even the one proposing such a section. What do you expect, that we provide 100% coverage for your position? There are non-Armenians that have blammed me to leave much too coverages for the revisionist position. By intimidating me this way you are only affecting your credibility. Fad (ix) 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness Fadix, I remember you opposed further expansion of the Turkish government position, and stated that Turkeys position was adequately covered (which was two or three lines in the introduction). In fact considering you put up such a fuss over me changing the title from "Turkish government denial" to "Turkish government position", i'm surprised you claim your proposed such a section. --A.Garnet 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith and won't accused you of anything. This is totally untrue, and the history of this talk page is here to testify. I was in fact the one proposing such a section and even proposed writting it myself before even you had engaged in this talk page, this was refused by Coolcat who wanted the entire article representing his position. What I had opposed was your deletion of materials and having changed an already existing section to another one. This was what I was opposing to. Like I said then and will repeat now, I have no problem with such a section, what I have a problem with was your deletion of what you did not want in the article. Fad (ix) 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel Charney? oh yeah that fellow with his bogus institute who is on the Armenian federation payroll. We certainly can take him seriously! 83.78.110.210/Lutherian 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Remind me to ignore you. Fad (ix) 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Hakob 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm having trouble taking any of you guys seriously, except for Fadix. He's one of the few people here that have been trying to make this article even remotely "fair". And yet you have to bitch at him because you want this article so full of caveats, "maybes" and "no one is sure about this" statements that it has 0 credability. I call that pathetic. Just because people like you have successfully ensured that people who push this view can be punished in Turkey doesn't mean that you can hold wikipedia hostage either.

Fadix is right. This page gives special treatment to Turkey, unlike similar pages on massacres, genocide, etc. It doesn't deserve a single bit more.

Blue there is nothing wrong with having an academic position. If you object to that then I guess it's because you want to lend credance to the Turkish government's position, as you feel it desperately needs it. Well tough luck because ordering academic and non-academic views make much more sense. John Smith's 20:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix is in fact the more dangerous type of genocide thesis supporter because he strives to give the impression of being impartial on the matter when his end game is crystal clear. The imprssion of fairness is just a cheap trick to fool those that follow the arguments. He also has plenty of a most valuable resource on his hands: Time and so can spend a lot of it trying to build his empty arguments! And you Mr. Smith's are a rabid supporter of the thesis, so your notion of fair is very different from the true meaning of the word!

We are sinking deep.....in even more camel fodder!!! Lutherian 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ok Fadix says that I am loosing credibility. it seems that when ever someone comes and tells something else he looses credibility. let me introduce myself first I am new comer here and not (obviously) in any way professionaly involved in history studies (I have a PHD in Neuroscience). and not getting any money from the Turkish goverment. and I am not a Holocoust denying neo-nazi either.I just read the article because of the relatively new debate here in Germany(ok i will be honest I have a Turkish girl friend and I am interested in Turkish history. and now i am using her computer. Does that reduce my credibility, probably yes ha?). I am sory to give this description but I get the impression that i will soon be blamed of beeing a Turkish propagandist, goverment person, racist whatever. Am I too sensitive. No take a look at the discussion history and see that these accusations are there.

I am making clear points that any sane unbiased human cam make. First of all the article issues the Genocide as a fact! A fact but with still some discussions (most of them being from the Turkish goverment). This gives the inevitible impression that all issiue is largely accepted(final verdict). Yet it is not!!! Secondly the term Genocide can only be used under certain conditions (as in the holocoust). in this case there is a real doubt if these conditions are met!!! still the article freely and carelessly uses the term just only because some people or countries recogonise it that way. Do we have the right to blame a nation with this ultimate crime just because of that??? Genocide guys this is no joke!!! tell it 100 times for 90 years and Turks are Genociders! Cool! third: after building up the genocide idea The article mainly represents the opposing view as the view of the Turkish goverment as clearly described by the headings (the position of Turkey,the position of Turkish authorities, political issues) as well as the content. which inevitibly gives the impression that the opposing view is just bull S*** Turkish propaganda. But it is not! Many Prof. and researcher of the era say that it is not. (As seen in the attached letter). yet fadix wrote that these prof were actually accepting the genocide they were fooled in to this (quoting Israel Charny). this is ridiculous. I dont know who the hell is Israel Charny or he really claims something like that. But please we are not stupid people. this was a letter to the representatives and these people who signed it are Profs. for gods sake!!! also If these prof were in favor of the genocide and really fooled in this conspiracy later they would have said "ok guys I am misslead and fooled into this" and this would be the ultimate tool for Armenian side too ridicule and discredit the Turkish side. Is it the case? No!(so fadix what about credibility)

I am not bitching anyone. I am not using citations and names to blurr peoples mind. if you read my previous adds you will see that i am trying to use a carefull language. I am sorry again if I used harsh words. But after reading the long history of discussion in this page I have the impression that Fadix (who seems to be the main edittor in this page)has a certain attitude towards the issue and despite serious oppsition now and in the past he is just pushing the article his way.

ok Fadix I believe in your good faith. I am a dumb ass who doesnt know any thing about history .please give me answers. I am just asking plain, crystal clear questions. I dont want to hear citations, dates and historian names. just logical anwers!! Just logical answers which will show that you are unbiased!!! Or you may choose to say I believe in Armenian genocide and that is why I chose to ignore...

1. how can you use the nomenclature or lets say the word "genocide" so easily knowing that it is desribed and only can be declared by international law. also knowing that there is robust objections to the usage of this term. Are you the ultimate expert. Are you the head of an international court?(if yes where is self defence?) ((you say Go try finding such a section in the Cambodian genocide article, the Nanking massacre article, Rwanda genocide article. I could not see a Cambodian genocide article, in Rwanda genocide: United Nations set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, so the guild is described by law. Nanking massacre is a perfect example!!! why is it not called a genocide but massacre? is it because the guilt is not described by law??!! and in the discussion there is no real objection to the issue accept the numbers)

2. why does the article present the genocide as a fact? (I hope you wont tell that it doesnt). why do you build up the article so that people are first instructed that there is indeed a genocide and only later show the objetions.

3. why is there no data about armenian gangs killing muslims and raiding villages before and after 1915. why there is no data about 500.000 muslim losses. if you say that it is out of the contexs (for me it is not the case because it will show that there is no genocide but a warfare) do you object to a link that will direct to an article about armenian gangs in anatolia their crimes and help to russian army.

4. why do you present the opposing view under such names: (the position of Turkey,the position of Turkish authorities, political issues). Why are you reluctant about citing numerous western historians with opposing view. is it because you think that these people are paid by Turkish goverment. if yes would you like to create a page about for examle Justin McCarty and add the centence "he is paid by the Turkish goverment to deny the Armenian Genocide".(people may think that this line is provacative and maybe offensive but this claim for Justin Mccarty is present in previous discussion pages) Why is the section on opposition is build up in a way to make people think that it is only Turkish bullS****.

I want to believe in your good will despite the bad feeling that i got from the previous discussions.

I am showing my respect to all contributors and dont make any change. Who is removing this tag??? {{totallydisputed}} it should be there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 May 2006

Has been tried, I know this classic trick. Placing ones 'neutrality' there and a PhD to embelish things a little bit. You can have three postdoctoral degree be a professor of neurobiology in the reknown departement of neuroscience in Rhur University, what you write on here is how people will treat you, and from what you have writen I will assume that this is a total fabrication unless you are revieling your personal life pressure here in Wikipedia, if you find thos words offensive just read carefully your answers directed at me. There are various articles in Wikipedia related to neuroscience which needs a lot of work, one of my personal interest astrocyte glia has still nothing on the new developpements and its link on complementing neurons and the treatment of information and memory. I can provide various such examples which were placed in my to-do list but removed. If you were to lecture with this same logic as here and trying to get any financing for a research your chances would be a zero or people will even start questioning your title.

No man of science with the discipline to recieve a PhD in a field such as neuroscience (I wonder about the specialisation though) will keep such a cheap periferial talk. Also your 'I have a Turkish girlfriend' is hardly convincing for several reasons. One of those I shall present here is your '500,000' figure alluding to the Muslim losses killed by 'Armenian gangs' this total fabrication also presented by Halacoglu which I have documented in this talk page. No rational individual having the IQ to process the information(and here I am even not taking into consideration the 130 IQ average range in the PhD circles in the fields such as [supposed] yours) will buy anything such when the figure is over three times those provided by the most infamous exaggerations of Kemalists authors such as Ahmed Emin. For some time now, neuroscience programs of Western Universities(Germany being one of those on the top of the list) have incorporated basic math courses dear, I know the system. Had there been that much killed by Armenian gangs, not only would the entire Eastern front be opened but not even in the optimistic scenarios the Greeks could have forgotten Istanbul, since the Armenian Patriarchate there should have left its place to a provincial parlement of an Armenia.

I have seen them all, the physicists, the mathematicians, the historians with a specialisation in middle east and now a neurobiologist, and I am sure I am missing many there. Lucky me, I wait the day to have a Nobel loreate in all the fields such as physic, chimistry, biology and the rest in the list so that I can crown that person on top of my pyramid.

As I have already referred to, the Armenian Genocide is recognized as such by the Permanent People tribunal, the International Center of Transitional Justice concluded genocide, The UN sub-commision on Prevention of Discrimination of protection of minorities had a transfered report by the higher chamber which was randered inaplicable dementled by the Turkish government who sent its protege Turkaya Ataov. I will BTW creat an article about this entire issue which I personally researched. Legally speaking, there is no doubt that the term genocide is applicable as professor Alfred de Zayas, ex-secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee stat in his report. The Armenian cases was included starting with the coining of the term by Raphael Lemkin, to the report by the UN in 1948 regarding the Armenian massacres months before the Convention on genocide was approved, included in the 70s again when it was decided that an ultimate report on genocide including Jurisprudence should exist before Turkey by intense pressure had done everything to kill the only UN legal report on genocide.

I won't chat talk here much, I didn't needed to discredit you, the hole in which you fell was yours not mine. But just one thing since I have few more lines to wast. Justin McCarthy being paid is not simply a claim. He was a member of the Armenian studies institutes in Ankara, a contributer of the book published by the Turkish National Assembly, and I could fill this entire talk page on all the referrences to McCarthy being the Turkish ambassador in America.

Lastly, I don't like, and I am sure no one like, to have his contribution here fabricated to that it is easier to answer me. All your chatting toward the Turkish position and your perception of my thinking has only a bearing in your reality not mine. Also, don't feel forced to contribute in neurobiology related articles to defend your title after those answers of yours, in my book you have to first build a credibility and start respecting I, that happen to be a Wikipedia and you can't change that. Fad (ix) 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Boy, Fadix, just reading through your words makes me realize what a paranoid you are, all these fake persons on this page arguing against the genocide thesis! Tsk tsk, do you actually get to sleep at night or does this conspiracy stuff work your mind? Lutherian 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix has now witfully demonstrated that I am a discredited, fabricated person who is in a hole. he has seen it all(most maybe but not all I assume). I apologise that I am a real person. it is fascinating that when an idea doesnt fit him he doesnt hassitate not only to say that documents are forged, Prof are fools but real people are fake as well. And by the way he did not really answer any of my questions accept for nr.1 and it is still partial. I asked him simple questions just to be conviced about his good will and he is going after me. I was realy ready to be convinced!!! Why are you trying to do that Fad? Why cant you just be cool and make a civilized debate? in the past you have found your mach and transformed this page to a racistic waste! I will not follow your path!

Fad(ix) I guess your mind can not really accept the fact that an European can support this "genocidal" Muslim race even in favor of the truth. (Actually I am not supporting the Turks I am here to support Wikipedia users right to get unbiased data) I will talk obout the rest later. bee cool ok. this is just a an article. see you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2006

In a country who faced NAZIsm, in a system where people in his discipline during their bachelor courses repeatdly learn to make the differences between race and ethnicity, and when the term race is discarded and left in the 'dark roon;' isen't it amazing that our PhD pall here thinks that Turks are a race? He must have missed his biology classes. No, Dr. Is not supporting the Turks, he is just recycling the Belgeler so-called documents presented by Halacoglu which was documented in this very same page. No, he is not supporting anyone just 'truth' and unbiased data... the sort of data as those that Halacoglu presented. But wait a bit, this data IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE, YEH, THE BIASED ME WAS THE ONE HAVING ADDED IT. Dr. Now tries the impersonal answer, it might work during diner where he invites the simple minded people to talk about how he got his PhD. But he must also consider that those in Wikipedia are not idiots and it is not because they don't brag their degrees and hide themselves behind them that it means in anyway that they are dumb people.

He tells me why I can not be just cool and have a civilized debate. Let refresh the memory of some here. Neurobio comes here, the first contribution after he makes a comment at Ocalan article is this. [11]

I shall quote a part of it: if you read the previous discussion pages you will see that there are several people who are there for 2 years. despite the fact that many of their claims and resources are shown to be false by another contributer they always come up with a similar page. this is obviously an unethical act showing that these people are here only for the sake of propaganda.

Our all mighty neurobiologist, who is here not supporting the Turks(that he use such classics is yet another matter that shall for now be better left ignored) but for the support of unbiased coverage. First he right away intimidate veterans, including me, who have spent an important amount of time working on this article, and unlike what he think, in good faith for its improvement. He also claims that: many of their claims and resources are shown to be false by another contributer they always come up with a similar page. this is obviously an unethical act showing that these people are here only for the sake of propaganda.

Had any of this above been true, he might have a point. Is it? First, Neurobio as a man of science should be aware that his point to be considered he must present arguments, examples, 'data' as he himself shoot. A man of science will have much difficulty answering because he is programmed to follow a structured text in which he present his thesis and then go on to provide his arguments. The thing is that I have yet to see what is in the article beside the few things added by Karabekir, that are false. Besides, what sort of language is this?

Then, he go one with his other answer [12]

First, I will be grateful of him if he provide here the ressource in question that he has read. Besides, the applicability of the term genocide isen't contested by organizations which handle such matters, Neurobio has yet to tell us why the second most studied genocide which is classified as one of the three instense of genocide under the restrictive definition should not have that term in the article. Besides, I don't see the article saying it is one, but just that 'those, those and those recognize it as such.' That Neurobio has a problem with such a neutral wording is again indicative of his dishonesty.

And then, Neurobio answer to my correction by this. [13]

At that time nowhere have I disrespected him, he had gone to 'jump' on me and start his intellectual intimidation trick. Talking of 'civilised' discussion.

This resolve Neurobio participation here. Another member who think that by claiming that he is not a Turk, people will start taking him more seriously, as if ones ethnicity makes any differences. I came here as an Armenian and am very confortable with that, and I judge individual based on what they say and do and not some social constructs. Neurobio really thought that he needed to make that remark and he of course also knew that this would be taken with skepticism and that the 'girlfriend' had a place in this. But given his disrespect and dihonesty, I have all the right to take his words with skepticism as long as this doesn't interfer with my contributions and for the sake of 'assume good faith' something Neurobio was unable to do from the day he landed in this talk page to now.

As for the supposed things I haven't answer. He can request what he want, and I have all the rights to answer or not. Those that followed me will know (including the Turks, as Holdwater the author of Tallarmeniantale has witnessed himself) that those sort of questions I would have no difficulty answer. But when I am discrespected this way, I usually refuse to adhere to ones request. Neurobio has yet to respect me, something he is unable to do and I will gladly answer his request.

I will now stop defending myself from such cheap intellectual intimidations and go back to contributing about what is on the article.

Oh, and as you can see Neurobio, talking to third person isen't exclusive to your intelligence. Fad (ix) 16:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, my thought is that you are the ONLY unintelligent person here. This is the third time I saw you attacking someone personally. Whenever you lack the appropriate answer, you rely on your personal attacks, mostly calling people "unintelligent". What a lame method to cover your personal unintelligence.

Fadix, I'm compelled to say that I've come to the conclusion that you are not capable of engaging in a civilized debate. I've read your exchanges with Torque and other users in the archieves, you don't seem to have any respect for the truth if it does not serve your agenda and you're always diverting to the discussion to anotherr direction either by making personal attacks or by providing tangential information to discredit what's being sad. But believe me 'winning' a debate here and there in this manner (as you think you are) does not help your cause in anyway. This is just ruining any possiblity for a civilized diaologue. That's my two cents. Deepblue06

I'm glad that you have read the archives and my contributions here like Neuro or every other newbies. And let me now tell you what I find sad, what I find sad is that both of you will request a civilized dialogues when witness of the archives which both of you claims having read you will go on to say this. For tsomeone that wrote among many things, the following.

“Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him...” “In typical Armenian style,” “This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.” “the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.” “Note Lynch is aware of the Armenian propensity for exaggeration,” “Well in opposition to the Armenians who have gotten away with their lies and distortions for so long.” “...then the exposure of the characterization of Armenians to lie and distort their religiously held genocidal obsession is not racism, but simply the truth.” “If Fadix thinks it's racist to bring up this characteristic acknowledged since centuries ago by a Roman historian,...” “Once again, Armenians love to charge others with the same unethical stunts Armenians are guilty of....” “Every time the Armenians were granted further freedoms, they gained increasing license to practice their treachery...” “This is the typical Armenian smear tactic going way back, perfected by many ethically-challenged Armenians like Vahan Cardashian.”

Those are the words of Torque, and here I am skipping many others or his other words found in forums, or those in his website. I have never gone as low as generalizing against an entire people. Yes, I have slandered Torque and I said on various occasions that I am ready to pay the price for that. If you think that my contributions are that bad, just open an arbitration cases, but wait also that all the testimonies from your side will be most probably checkused from the amount of various aliases landing in this talkpage and all knowing me so well and having read my past two year contributions. I have nothing to add, in fact, an Arbitration on this article will be welcomed right now, because I am convinced that I have nothing to hide and that most probably you will lose by the conclusion that this article should be partially blocked indefinitly from new users and unregistered ones. Have a nice day. Fad (ix) 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fadix I intentionally wanted to talk you because you think that you are the alfa male around and because I believe you are actually vandalizing this page. I still think that you are discrediting the page as I have declared it in my first addition. I did not need too much knowledge to excite you and make you show your real face. Now you are attacking me personally and showing a specific pattern. Yet I am not a master of polemics and shameless talk. In general I will not do this your way but for now I am really pissed off!!! so i will talk as you do (but more elegant).

I knew that this was coming so I wrote all this explanations to clarify my situation. still this is used against me. In this damm page every body is either Armenian, Kurd, Turk or Greek. what a perfect crowd to construct a such a topic.! Still I was not aware that I have put myself in such a shit!!!

First of all a Phd in neuroscience doesn’t give anyone credibility in this issue. I wrote it to show that I am completely out of the subject. Actually most of the specialists are complete ignorant in another issue. Why did I mention that I am a Phd. I don’t know I got it recently maybe I am too proud for now. It will pass in one or two years. Why did I mention that I am not Turkish? Isn’t it obvious? Of course to get more credibility and to avoid getting accused of being a Turkish person doing propaganda. I have read the discussion before hand and saw that any one coming with the opposing view is accused of being a Turkish propagandist. So there is no problem with an Armenian (probably a specialist or a immensely devoted person) editing the entire page according to his school but a naïve person is declaring that he is not devoted to the subject because of a racial or patriotic motive is problematic and suspicious. What kind of a crime is that?

For the declaration of the girl friend issue I was making fun of you and the likes of you there. I guess you are clever enough to understand that. But your mind only works for conspiracies. It may be a result of studying pseudo genocide for years (is it personal? Maybe but you did it first).

So now I have to prove that I am not Turkish or I am done. Do you want me to send here my passport pictures? Are you going to apologize then! Will you then admit that you are attacking people personally to accomplish your quest? Will you take your biased hands off this page forever? Let me answer for you. No you will say that this pass is not mine. It is copied or forged. I don’t know what to say. Now "Mr. Who has seen everything" you are dammmmm wrong this time. (or are you wrong most of the time and do it intentionally?)

Fadix you are talking about "cheap interlectual intimidations". well you may think so. But if you want to talk about being cheap accusing people of lying is the cheapest thing possible here. Coming up with nonsense claims like Profs being fooled by the Turkish government is also cheap. Claiming that every article or resource that says something else is forged is also cheap. Especially despite the fact that Armenian literature has the greatest forgeries available. (don’t ask for references you know what they are). And I see that you are really enjoying your self and feeling intelligent making “clever“ comments about the personal data that I provided here. I am actually enjoying it too. But please put more effort be more creative. I will provide more personal data that you can use to make fun of. So that you will practice for your targeted personal attacks in a higher platform. (And by the way “isen't it amazing that our PhD pall here thinks that Turks are a race?” what is that that? it is not even clever or funny at all please J !!).

Fadix you have a specific mind devoted to the issue and again I understand that you can’t accept any European Christian backing Turkish claims. When I think this way I am not angry at you (you accused me of being a liar. Right?) I understand you are trained this way and obviously 99,9% of all westerns are quiet easy to convince when it comes to Turks and Muslims being the bad guy. I will tell you my motives so Mr. “Who has seen it all” you will learn a new type that you will use for your future classifications. I am going to marry a Turkish girl soon. I had the chance to see her family, her culture and country. When I say that I will marry a Turkish girl I see that people are looking at me like an alien. I always hear that Turks are Islamic extremists, they kill Kurds, Greeks, genocide Armenians, they can not integrate so I will not be happy with them. But When I met these people and read the other side of the story and unbiased resources I see a different picture. I realized that what we have used to think and read is mostly bulls***. I want to convey this side of story to other people. Now that is I guess a new category for you? But still it must be bad enough! I am actually thinking that you will not believe this either… Or you may chose to make fun of this personal data. Do as you wish.

So "Mr. Who has seen it all" (sounds like the next j. Bond movie) there is a Turkish saying that I have learned from my friends. “You may eat a big piece of food but never spill out big words” : ). I hope you wont continue to attack me personally and end this “undercover Turk” conspiracy. I am not an expert obviously but any one with a normal mind will have something to say after reading all this discussions.

I guess you are the one who is removing the Tag from the page. If it is not you… Then “sorry”. This page has one of the longest discussion history ever but still the issue is not settled the tag must stay!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurobio (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 May 2006

Beg me pardon Sir., I will answer one more time. :)

This answer above is sufficient evidences of what I have been saying. Dir. Sir, I have never accused you of lying, a man of your 'tenure' should of course know the differences between claiming that one lie, and taking ones word with skepticism.

But just to clarify things, I do indeed believe you are a Turk, not because of your position regarding the genocide, but because of many other issues. And you provided one bit more example of what constitute yet another 'issue.'

Fadix you have a specific mind devoted to the issue and again I understand that you can’t accept any European Christian backing Turkish claims.

So you are an European Christian? Dude, you can pray Krishna, as an agnostic I have nothing to do about it. Germany is on the top 5 list of countries in the world where Atheism/agnosticism is the number one religion. In neuroscience departements in Germany you will hardly find anyone who would consider himself as a Christian. But of course, for someone that might not be a PhD in neuroscience and not be the German he claims to be, using this broken record when impersonating could still sound as credible. And in case you didn't knew, Armenia is also in the top 40 of countries where atheism/agnosticism is prelevent. You may question Dadrian if he even believe in God or what he thinks about Christianity the next time he gives a lecture in Germany and he is considered the greatest Armenian scholar in the study of the genocide, because in the Diaspora the intelligentsia doesn't care either. As someone who research protobiont, you can be the Pope and I would not care. That you thought that this would make any differences for me is the sort of things that makes me skeptic about you.

As for the fact that you found my remark about Turks not being a race as offensive, no they aren't, as a man who has a PhD degree in a biology discipline, you should have been aware that the classic classification of race by the groups 'Caucasian,' 'Negritos,' 'Negroid' and Mongoloid' is questioned, so I take with skepticism when a biologist will go on to call any people who are a sub-sub-sub category of a fictive classification(aka race) as a 'race.'

Comming to your alleged marriage with a Turk, long life to you. But here again, this is another example of why I take your words with skepticism. You think and insinuate that I will care one bit of you getting married to a Turk. Why should I? All this is totally irrelevant, what is relevant is what YOU think. First, you didn't even know who Israel Charny is, second, you still kept repeating that I will attack and slander 'prof' and accusing them to be pied, when I simply presented the list of ITS and ARIT grants those that signed the petition recieved. And you even had gone to continue accusing me after I have stated that Justin McCarthy has personally contributed and has a chapter in the book published by the Turkish National Grand Assembly and that he was requested just months ago to advice the Grand assembly, which he did. I am not saying anything, I am not building anything, I am simply citing sources and events. What you make of it or think what I have said is your own business.

Also, having confirmed that you literaly 'jumped' on me from your first answer here, you still must have the face to try telling me that I am in the wrong.

As for your passport, I will gladly accept your offer, let see if you are a man of your words, no, I will not claim that it is fake, since having a copy of your passport, I could easily confirm that you are a PhD in neuroscience and from the server I have access place an order on your thesis about post stroke depression. I will then, apologise publically for my skepticism.

Regards. Fad (ix) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Neurobio, I wouldnt trust Fadix with your personal info, who knows what he would do with it. Probably forward it to some underground Armenian terrorist organization Lutherian 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

well said Neurobio but remember that Fadix has a history of accusing others of all kinds of crimes and then appologizing for his sloppy mistakes. Maybe it would be better to call him the Grand Inquisitor as he seems to believe he has a monopoly on knowledge. He thinks he is cunning by giving the impression of being impartial so that he can make it easier for the reader to accept his ridiculous claims. Well look at the bright side of things, he has on several occasions exhibited signs of being on the verge of a breakdown so it cant be too far! Lutherian 05:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my accusations were confirmed in all cases except one. Don't you remember when you claimed to be a Lutherian and that I have accused you to be lying? And what happened with checkuser? Had it not confirmed what I have been accusing you of? The only mistake I did was a partial one since OttomanReference, Karabekir were really socks of another member. Fad (ix) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

ahem, you are at it again, filtering out what you dont like and turning the subject matter around to attack me. Simply pathetic! Lutherian 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you questioning checkusers? Fad (ix) 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about??? Lutherian 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just read most of this discussion and was wondering.. Why is it that whenever someone denies the genocide, he/she is told that they cannot continue the Turkish propoganda? The genocide is not accepted by many countries which means that it is NOT a fact and yet you can compare it to the Holocaust alike.. This article explains the so called "genocide" as if it's a proved fact which is absolutely not true. Oh and btw, some unintelligent people should stop looking at the subject from a single point of view and should stop blaming people with different opinions of making a Turkish propoganda. Those kinds of people are really turning Wikipedia into an unreliable, unjust source..

With regards to this: There is a general agreement among Western historians that the Armenian Genocide did happen. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe), for instance, formally recognize the event and consider it to be undeniable. Some consider denial to be a form of hate speech or/and historical revisionism.

The claim is made that there is general agreement among Western historians and attempts to substantiate this false claim by citing Assoc. Genocide Scholars - President Israel Charny, First Vice President Gregory Stanton, Second Vice President Linda Melvern - theres are all political activists, they do not have a History degree between them. This paragraph entirely disregards all the Western historians that are clearly not in "general agreement" (scores have been mentioned on this page) and promotes human rights activists to the level of historian. This paragraph is not qualified. It should be removed.

++++ ok Fadix today I am no more angry at you. I really liked this little war with you. Really!! I kind of like you. I go home tired, work till midnight with papers and then having my coffe i read your post. Enjoyable. (there is no mockery in this, honest more than ever). I hope you felt at least a little the same. Now that the article is locked we have the attention on us. I will say few words and close the personal talk. You are free to think that I am Turkish althoug I am not. If you think that origin is no problem then there is nothing to discuss. I dont know why you are obssessed about the phd thing. I just wrote it without a reason. I was just pointing my unrelated profession. You may think as you like. Just like you I will still have my suspitions and toughts about you. maybe you are a historian from a Armenian institute getting money from the diaspora (like Mccarty), maybe a well trained officer in an embassy, maybe just a overly devoted armenian). it doesnt matter as long as we are here for a unbiased page (are we?) I will not go personal in anyway from now on. (unless you go personal). I hope you wont think "I kicked hiss ass and now he satteld down". Because admit that I am also good at writing bullshit just like you.

just a final statement. You think that I was offended by what you wrote about turks not beeing a race. Dear Fadix it clearly shows how our brains work so differently. there you wrote something like “isn't it amazing that our PhD pall here thinks that Turks are a race? he missied his biology class”. I am not offended there about Turks. You are saying that your phd pal doesnt know what a race is. I know what a race is Fadix people use this term sometimes without going into genetics or ethnicity digup. thats why I said this king of a statement is not (funny or clever) good enough to be used by you. And I respect you actually you are my midnight coffe pal. now for the real debate...

Neurobio 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The page history (diff here) shows that the above comments was made by 85.178.46.152 (talk • contribs) who may, or may not, be Neurobio (talk • contribs). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

oh shit I wrote all this before seeing the armenian legion argument. I dont know what to say. For some time I thought you were kind of a person who is an armenian nationalist and who enjoys harsh debating but now... Sad to see a whole nation sinking into such a pure hate... Is that your haritage to your children. anyway as you like.

Neurobio 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The page history (diff here) shows that the above comment was made by 85.178.46.152 (talk • contribs), who may, or may not, be Neurobio (talk • contribs). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS TRULY SUBJECTIVE

This article is very subjective reagdless, if youre a Turk ,Armenian or whatever, so instead of having a continuous editing war upon this article at least these two tags should be certainly added to this article; {{totallydisputed}} {{inappropriate tone}} I will certainly add these tags to this article if someone else doesn't. NO ONE has the RIGHT to impose unverified, so called historic data on anyone, get over it. Argue all you whish, without proper evidence your'e going around in circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmr5555 (talk • contribs) .}

What is the entire purpose of "References" section for if this article is you claim that it is unverified? It is verified and I really don't see why you seem to call it that. That section has been meticulously reviewed many times over and that information has been verified. And please, leave a signature by writing two dashes followed by four tildes so we can at least know whose talking here. --MarshallBagramyan 16:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you (Anon signed) add the tags I will remove them. :) John Smith's 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is that? Just because you do not want people to see how unreliable the information this article gives is? or just to make them believe this genocide rubbish? As you can see, there is a real dispute here so deleting the tags is just denying the truth. So if you delete them I'll readd them ":)"

With such a controversial issue there is no such thing as unbiased and correct information, it all depends on what side you're on and who the information favors the best. Everything has been so smudged over the past 85 years that who knows what happened back then. It's very sad for me to say that but its the truth. I propose that we have a section for the "biased" Armenian side and a section for the "biased" Turkish side and leave it at that

Big FARCE

This topic is turning out to be another source of pure Armenian propaganda! So much for encyclopedic objectivity that Wiki strives for! Whats next? Maybe that the Turks engineered the 1988 earthquake? After all we need to feed the voracious appetite of the Armenian propaganda machine to keep the money flowing! Right fellows? Lutherian 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Its of a very bad taste and rather offensive to make fun of Turks on the discussion section of such a highly charged topic as this! You should know better! Lutherian 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. ;) —Khoikhoi 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the constantly wheeled out "objective"/NPOV argument. I find this amusing, because normally whenever someone complains, "Waaah! This isn't NPOV!", it's when they're trying to stop a discussion about something they disagree with or limit its impact. Well, you know, the fact is that the Turkish government did bad things. To complain that this article is all propaganda shows your own bias and lack of neutrality. John Smith's 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well sir, the fact of the matter is that every government/country on this planet did bad things and yours has a particularly naughty history! The point is there is a world of a difference between doing bad things and committing an act of genocide but you seem to be keen on blaming the Turks despite the clear lack of proof! Maybe you should read more from the opposite view before blindly jumping on the accusation bandwagon! Lutherian 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The topic is comlpletely racist. There is nothing in article about the turkish massacres. 500.000 Turks killed by Armenians. This is not a Genocide. Only 21 countris describe it as a genocide. Other 500 countries don't describe it so it can't be described in Wikipedia as "Genocied". For 80 years Armenians connot prove that it is a systematic genocide. Armenian Genocide theory is a product of Armenian racism.

A.Alayan(One of the architects of the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million Muslim people)

I killed Muslims by every means possible. Yet it is 
sometimes a pity to waste bullets for this. The best 
way is to gather all of these dogs and throw them into  
wells and then fill the wells with big and heavy stones, 
as I did. I gathered all of the women, men and children, 
threw big stones down on top of them. They must never live 
on this earth.

Yep, talking of... A. Lalayan, A. Alayan, then there is also the 'I killed Azeri by every means possible. There is also the other version, 'I killed Turks by every means possible.' And so on. Serdar Argic fabrications are still alive in the psychi of revisionists. Fad (ix) 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruzgar 10:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you surprised that this site is being hijacked by racists? Here is an transcript of a letter written by an Armenian which I think very much summarizes their feelings towards Turks. And yes, I am generalizing here!

[off topic and uncivil comment removed - FrancisTyers 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Ruzgar, there are only 243 countries... —Khoikhoi 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Pamuk given so much attention?

Pamuk is a novelist who made a statement in a magazine. He is not a scholar or an academic, but writes fiction. He is given far too much attention, especially considering his remarks were more about the limits of Turkish democracy, rather than the massacres themselves. Whats more, this article states the Turkish government prosecuted him, which to the best of my knowledge is wrong. The prosecutions were raised by nationalist lawyers within the judiciary, people who Pamuk has made clear are trying to derail the EU process. These are the same people who tried to prosecute Joost Lagendijk, an EU representative. So trying to link the prosecution of Pamuk by nationalist lawyers to a government backed attempt to deny a genocide is innacurate. --A.Garnet 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making this as if the judiciary system is entirly disconected from the government. Who the prosecutor is supposed to represent, may I ask you? As for the interview Pamuk gave. I strongly propose you to read his novel Snow if you haven't still done so. More particularly the sections reffering the the Armenian church, buildings those ghosted places. His silence on what went wrong was pretty much clear to me. Also, Pamuk is now an internationally reknown author. If Halacoglu who simply published one material which is academically relevent, not more than a booklet has the right to have all this place for him, I don't see why a Nobel Price candidate should not have this section. I do agree with you thought that giving that much space for a person is a little too much, but given the current shape of the article there are more primordial things to fix first. Fad (ix) 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But you have to admit that it serves to feed the almighty Armenian propaganda machine!!! Pamuk stated clearly in the hardtalk interview that his issue was with the notion of freedom of speech in Turkey, not the massacre of Armenians! Lutherian 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was lucky to catch that interview, and yes Pamuk was critical of the Western media who played into the hands of the nationalists. --A.Garnet 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And have you seen this? [14] Fad (ix) 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I havent seen it no, dont have time to watch it all at the moment. With regards to the Turkey's judiciary, it is notoriously conservative and anti-AKP. Yes the government draws up the laws, but nationalist lawyers are the ones invoking it to prosecute Pamuk, journalists, and even the Dutch EU representative. The government made clear it was opposed to these, but because of the judiciarys independence it could not interfere. See here:

"Mr Gul told the NTV news channel he thought the prosecutions - brought after complaints by a group of nationalist lawyers - were not "good for Turkey". He said the government could not intervene in the judicial process, but could change the law. "We cannot interfere with the courts, but we can monitor how laws are implemented and interpreted and whether that is the direction Turkey wants to take," he said. --A.Garnet 20:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkish propaganda

It appears the Turkish Ministry for Propaganda and Disinformation has discovered Wikipedia. (based on recent cheesy edits)

hmmm, more like the small time knucklehead Soviet-Armenian nationalistic attempts to hijack this topic and hope it will convince those that are not as of yet brainwashed and/or braindead of their fictitious claims! Lutherian 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

hmmm indeed, enjoy cheese?

Yeah but a better saying would be a Turkish attempt to clean up Armenian propoganda.

POV tag/tags in general to this article

I dropped the "totally disputed" tag and then added the POV tag as a compromise but that is weaselly. It seems that there is enough hashing things out in here and enough editing that the POV tag can be removed totally?? I am new so I need to admittly research this more. This topic is defineately contriversial but hope folks can keep it civil for the sake of this project and ALL of are sanities.--Tom 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed that the neutral tag should have been left there and removed after some issues are addressed. But with the number of edits this article gets from unregistered users and newly registered users it is very difficult to keep track of anything. Fad (ix) 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Halacoglu's findings

The Casualties section where Halacoglu's interview on CNN Turk is — in this context, the word purportedly should appear here — reported simply does not read as English. Parts of it I can guess at, but others are completely incomprensible. If I can't follow it, how can non-Anglophone readers be expected to understand it ?

• "When the Ottoman grand totals are compared to details, he says there is a discrepancy of 26,064 which he locates on the of Halep."
• "between 09/06/1915 and 08/02/1916"
• "However, he also claims that subtraction of this group can not be substantiated over the grand total ..."
• "He states that Armenians were not treated as prisoners, which gave them chance to respond to local populations during the migrations (deportations)."
• "He claims that there is no record on the initiation of the local conflicts with Armenians, but just around 5-6 thousand in Dersim, and grand total of this category in all areas reaches to 9-10 thousand."

Also problematic, the citation is for a television interview, and Halacoglu's work is said to be unpublished. Where can interested readers find an English-language transcript of the interview ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratch a little bit more and you'll find out why I had trouble with Karabekir additions. This is an example. This should even not be there in the first place, the most relevant thing about Halacoglu I already added. I propose removing those and replacing them with Kamuran Gurun, Turkaya Ataov etc. Halacogly published one notable work, a booklet, which most relevant conclusion I already added in the article, I had trouble with expending his research and wanted rather including those of other Turkish authors who by their publications are considered more notable. Fad (ix) 17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While were at it lets at Faurrison et al to the Holocaust article eh? --THOTH 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Absurdity of Turkish denial

I have pretty much given up on this page - and Wikipedia in general - as this article - more then any other - points to its absolute failure IMO. Nothing in Wikipedia can be at all trusted - and this is obviouus. The editors here have allowed this charade to not only continue but they actively encourage these Turkish know-nothings to blabber on and contribute nothing of fact - only obstufication and obscuration of the truth. Most sad. Well Fadix - I told you so - through your ham handed efforts we now have an Armenian Genocide article that dispenses practically no information concerning the Genocide itself - what it really was all about, how it occured and who did what to whom...instead we have an article that is made up fully of 2/3 of a unsupported, untrue, entirely POV and poorly written Turkish denialist position. You made the point yourself on this page - what other genocide article has the denialist position laid out as if it is anything legitimate or serious...

Anyway from yesterdays Herald Tribune - speaks to the issue we are dealing with here: (my bolds)

International Herald Tribune

MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006

Turkey's self-destructive obsession with denying the Armenian genocide seems to have no limits. This week, the Turks pulled out of a NATO exercise because the Canadian prime minister used the term "genocide" in reference to the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I. Before that the Turkish ambassador to France was temporarily recalled to protest a French bill that would make it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide occurred. And before that, a leading Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk, was charged with "insulting Turkish identity" for referring to the genocide (the charges were dropped after an international outcry).

Turkey's stance is hard to fathom. Each time the Turks lash out, new questions arise about Turkey's claims to a place in the European Union, and the Armenian diaspora becomes even more adamant in demanding a public reckoning over what happened.

Granted, genocide is a difficult crime for any nation to acknowledge. But to treat any reference to the issue within Turkey as a crime and to scream "lie!" every time someone mentions genocide is absurd. By the same token, we do not see the point of the French law to ban genocide denial. Historical truths must be established through dispassionate research and debate, not legislation, even if some of those who question the evidence do so for insidious motives.

But the Turkish government considers even discussion of the issue to be a grave national insult and reacts to it with hysteria. Five journalists who criticized a court's decision to shut down an Istanbul conference on the massacre of Armenians were arrested for insulting the courts. Charges against four were subsequently dropped, but a fifth remains on trial.

The preponderance of serious scholarship outside Turkey accepts that more than a million Armenians perished between 1914 and 1923 in a state-sponsored campaign. Turkey's continued refusal to countenance even a discussion of the issue stands as a major obstacle to restoring relations with neighboring Armenia and to claiming Turkey's rightful place in Europe and the West. It is time for the Turks to realize that the greater danger to them is denying history.

--THOTH 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The idiot who wrote this article wrongly suggests that the Turkish government considers the discussion of the issue a grave national insult. If that biased idiot knew better, he would note that the Turkish government recently invited international and Armenian scholars to look into the Ottoman archives and debate the issues. The Armenian position on this point is that there is nothing to discuss, so his mentioning that its taboo to discuss this issue like grown ups in Turkey is ridiculous! 85.0.202.5 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well only the Turkish penal code does eh? Nothing worth noting I guess...that jouranlists and others a re being prosecuted for "Insulting Turkish Identity"...no biggie eh? --THOTH 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from the Findings of the United Nations Permenent Peoples Tribunal 1984 - There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal. The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948. The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact --THOTH 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine - remove the "Turkish position" from the article then - at the very least. It is nothing more then genocide denial. It is poorly written and entirely POV - based on opinion and not fact. It is neither referenced nor supportable and should be treated as symptomatic denial - not history or even a legitimate position. The only proper way to deal with the Turkish denial of what are clearly truthful and scholarly/historical accepted positons are to present their false manipulated position for what it is - a joke and an insult and to treat their offical denial campaign in the manner which it deserves to be treated - with contempt (and certainly presented for what it is). What I have posted on these talk pages supports these contentions. I provide solid evidence for the position that affirms the fact of genocide and the fact that Turks undertook a systematic campaign to eliminate Armenians of the Ottoman Empire/Anatolia and then they deny that such occured - while evidence clearly shows otherwise. Meanwhile Turks comment here offer nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and personal attacks. Yet you people perpetuate this garbage while censoring my contributions. So you want the article to suck it seems. Fine. I would be and am embarrased by this amature piece posing as legitimate information and you should be too. You should be even more embarrassed about how you are supporting Genocide denial and unfactual revisionism and everyone should be embarrased by the extremely low quality of these talk pages in general. I've attempted my best to improve the quality of the discussion here - but obviously it is not appreciated. Truth and accuracy are seemingly secondary considerations in the world of Wiki. Quite pathetic. I will not be regulated to some secondary talk page while no nothing revisionists hold sway in the article and in the discussions. I can find better things to do with my time. --THOTH 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just how ridicilous that while even many countries do NOT accept the Genocide and aren't sure what to do, you can say that you have solid information that the "genocide" is a fact. Something to be laughed at. 81.213.208.136 (talk • contribs)

Only in the world of holocaust denial, until now, had I come across the idea that governments need to acknowledge something as a fact — as if governments write history, well they can try — before it can be accepted. It is fallacious there, and it is just as flawed here. History is written by historians. If historians who write on X say that X happened, then that's what Wikipedia should say. Politicians can be relied on to do what they must to be re-elected, and not much more. Their denial of X, or insistence that X happened if historians say otherwise, might be worth noting. It doesn't constitute a WP:RS for X or not-X. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no energy for this now, I have already made my point. Wikipedia doesn't establish the truth, and the shape of the article make it clear that in the West the thesis that a genocide happened is accepted by most. Had their been any such policies as 'You shall write the truth' there is no article in Wikipedia that will not be victim of edit warring. Fad (ix) 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of genocide are accepted by only those that are racially motivated. You dont need to dig very deep to see the prejudices against Turks all across Europe. Its been the case historically, why should it be different now? 85.0.202.5 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, of course it is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming that is true...--THOTH 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The absurdity of Turkish 'denial' will become apparent when you present the evidence that there was a state sponsered campaign to eradicate the Armenians. A[n] (unforged) telegram giving the orders, the testimony of somebody receiving the orders.. anything. You like to draw endless comparisons to the Holocaust. Reams of such evidence existed for that episode and yet all that has ever been shown in regard to this was a relocation order. The relocation was never in dispute. As much as it may frustrate you, the reason this argument endures is that Western historians reject that this proof exists. Moreover, they have documented attempts to manufacture such proof, whether it be with the presentation of forgeries or selective citation and paraphrasing. The Armenian thesis is forever tainted by this in the eyes of anyone whoever bothers to study the historians.

Hm - you mean such as this: (From the transcripts of one of the Post War ottoman Military Tribunal Trials)

An extensive January 15, 1919, affidavit prepared at the request of the Mazhar Inquiry Commission Major Mehmet Salim, the Military Commandant of Yozgat and President of the latters Recruitment Bureau referred to above, provides every conceivable detail on the conception, organization, control, and execution of the Armenian genocide in the district of Yozgat. Salim forthrightly stressed the point that un-derlying the entire scheme of deportations lay "a policy of extermination" (imha siyaseti) which Kemal mercilessly implemented in his district. The details were plot-ted out "in nightly merry-making, drinking parties." Together with his drinking pals Kemal would work out these details for "the next days operations." The atrocities were intended to help redeem "lttihad's national aspirations" and became its "official policy." According to the same affidavit, the massacre of the male victims followed a uniform pattern. In order to render them defenseless they were marched off in twos or fours "with arms and hands tied up." The implements used were "axes, spades, swords, knives, hatchets." As to the secret character of the designs on the Ottoman Armenians, defendant Kemal himself unwittingly supplied proof. In the course of his December 16, 1918, second pretrial interrogation, Kemal volunteered the information that the central authorities in Istanbul had ordered him to "burn" certain ciphers after reading them (okuduktan sonra yakilmast emir olundugundan).--THOTH 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important feature of the Verdict was its conclusion that the deportations were a cloak for the intended massacres. "There can be no doubt and no hesitation" on this point, it declared in that conclusion (guphe ve tereddiit btrak-madigindan . . .). --THOTH 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No - not just "deportations"...unless you similarly view Nazi concentration camps as "rest hoomes" or such...

"In his inaugural address on October 19, 1918, for example, the Upper Houses President (of the Ottoman Parliment) openly declared that during the war "the Armenians were savagely killed. A month later, a prominent Ottoman statesman made a crucial revelation: during his term as post-war President of the Council of State he came into possession of evidence documenting the fact that the Central Committee of lttihad had planned and ordered the massacre of the provincial Armenian population. Upon further examination, Re§it AkifPasha determined that the lttihad Party and its boss, Talat, were responsible for the mas-sacres. On the basis of this determination the Attorney General launched his investigation of the lttihad Party in early December 1918. The Lower House, i.e., the Chamber of Deputies, held similar debates and heard similar revelations before the courts martial period. On December 11, 1918, Trabzons deputy declared that he had "personally observed" an episode of the drowning operations on the Black Sea, during which "the Armenians, under the pretext of being taken to another port city, were loaded onto barges and thrown overboard in the high seas". The transcripts which record this evidence represent a crucial source of documentation." --THOTH 20:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess you think the Turks were just taking Armenians out for moonlit walks eh?

"According to Rifaat (bey – a Moslom notable from Yozgat): Major Trevfik almost completely eliminated the Armenian population of Yozgat. He first slaughtered the males between the ages of 15 and 75 as Tass Punar village with “hatchets and axes as the victims kept screaming like birds. Thereafter, he carted off in wagons the belongings and jewelry of victims to his home.”

Major Tevfik then had the Armenian inhabitants of several villages of Akdag, Maden and Bogazliyan, as well as Kum Kuyu village burned alive in their homes.

Abdullahzade Mehmet, Bogazhyan Mufti advised the Court in written testimony that Kemal’s method for destroying Armenians consisted of liquidating the males first and subsequently massacring the convoys of women and children." --THOTH 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said.. as soon as you have some proof, I am sure the argument will die. Unfortunately you have relied entirely on the 'evidence' from 1919.

"If Dadrian wants to consider the verdict of the Turkish courts-martial as proof of the guilt of the Young Turk regime in the premeditated murder of Ottoman Armenians, he is, of course, free to do so. However, his readers should know that the evidence relied upon by the military tribunals—"confessions, witness and expert testimony, official records, discovery, judicial notice, searches and seizure"—is of doubtful reliability. Among other shortfalls in due process, it was never subject to cross-examination. More importantly, this evidence does not actually exist." - Professoer Lewy.

[The court martials were] "proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government." British high commissioner S.A.G. Calthorpe.

[The tribunal was such a failure] "that its findings cannot be held of any account at all." Commissioner John de Robeck.

When the British government considered holding trials of alleged Ottoman war criminals in Malta, it declined to use any evidence developed by the 1919-20 Ottoman tribunals.

I was talking about something real, the evidence of sort that Nuremburg produced reams of. You are aware of course, that several historians have repeatedly stated that no such evidence has been ever been presented.

You know what, without knowing it you have presented yet your most important contribution to Wikipedia and you don't even realise it.

Before answering Lewy comment here, I shall answer his manipulation of Calthorpe and John de Robeck words. The reader when reading those quotes will think that the conclusion of the court martial regarding the extermination of the Armenians is erronous. But this is not so, to the contrary, both made such statments because they felt that the Martial Court was becoming a farce because there was no intention to punish the guilty ones and most had gone left untrialed and that files and records incriminating the guilty ones were just disapearing. An example is Halil somehow from his prison cell was freed and found himself in a new mission in the East. Let quote the context in which John Robeck is saying this.

This is what the British High Commissioner Vice Admiral de Robeck reported to Curzon recading the Court Martial proceedings. He stated that the proceedings "in many respects unsatisfactory and chaotic; ... such a dead failure that its findings cannot be held of any account at all, if it is intended to make responsibility for deportations and massacres of inter-Allied concern ... it is generally thought now that little can be expected from Court Martial ... " (FO 371/4174/136069, folios 466, 469-70). On November 17, 1919 he reiterated that "the Turkish Court Martial... was never efficient and whose President and members are continually being changed, has become more of a farce than ever." He requested that those responsable of the massacres be judged, but insteed of, files were just getting disapearing and members changed and that it was as if not many members were really attempting to get those responsables charged but rather just to show that they were actually trialling people. He on the other hand, has never disputed the records presented but rather the way they were delt with or the way files were just taken away. An example is the cases of Sakir and the records presented about him placing him as one of the main organizers of the massacres. Robeck writes in his report of Feb. 18, 1920: "He was a member of the small secret Committe known as Teshkilati Mahsusa formed by the Central Committee of the Committee of Union and Progress to organize the extermination of the Armenian race." (FO 371/5089/E949, Feb. 18, 1920 report.) On November 17, 1919 with the Kemalist forces becoming stronger and stronger he was forced to conclude that it was naive to think that the Court Martial will bring all those responsible to justice. Facing the Kemalist threat he wrote: "the present Turkish Government... [is] so dependent on the toleration of the organisers of the National Movement that I feel it would be futile to ask for the arrest of any Turk accused of offences against Christians, even though he may be living openly in Constantinople ... I do not consider it politically advisable to deport any more prisoners." Robeck even proposed that the way to bring peace and justice was "only by means of an army of occupation." That just few got sentenced for what he called the extermination of the Armenians was for him enough to discredit the Martial Court. He never questioned the records presented contrary to what Lewy is suggesting.

Comming to Calthorpe (I will be commenting Lewy statment at the end and leave people judge). When one reads the selective quote presented by Lewy, it will be interpreted as if the conclusions about the destruction of the Armenian community or the records presented are questionned. I shall now quote him and show what he really meant, which was of course different than what Lewy is attempting to convince his readers. On January 18, 1919, British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe answered to the Turkish Foreign Minister: "His Majesty's Government are resolved to have proper punishment inflicted on those responsible for Armenian massacres." Ten days later he wires London with the following statment: "It was pointed out to [the Turkish] Government that when [the] massacres became known in England, British Statesmen had promised [the] civilized world that persons connected would be held personally responsible and that it was [the] firm intention of H.M. Government to fulfil [that] promise."

NOW FOLLOW THIS, AND IF YOU HAVE NO TIME TO READ THE REST, THE CAPS ON WILL HELP YOU TRACK THE RELEVANT PART, NOW READ WHAT IS ABOUT TO COME AND TELL ME IF LEWY IS NOT THE DISHONEST INDIVIDUAL HE ACCUSED DADRIAN TO BE. HERE IT COMES.

On May 21, 1919, Calthorpe informs London regarding 41 Turks who were released from the military prison by the Ottoman autorities under the pretext that there was no cases against them, surprised he reported: "there was every reason to believe, [they] were guilty of the most heinous crimes ... mainly in connection with massacres." (FO 371/4174/88761 (folio 9) (May 30, 1919)) An example of such cases was Dr. Saib and his team who poisoned countless numbers of children and dumped them into the sea, he was freed while two of his colleagues presented a report about the cases. No wonder Calthorpe was considering the tribunal as a farce. OF COURSE, RECORDS WERE PRESENTED TESTIFYING THE GUILT OF VARIOUS PEOPLE, AND THEN, THE RECORDS WILL JUST DISAPEAR OR PEOPLE WILL GET FREED.

And now, the most RIDICULIOUS PART is when Lewy write: When the British government considered holding trials of alleged Ottoman war criminals in Malta, it declined to use any evidence developed by the 1919-20 Ottoman tribunals. Should there be any more evidences how dishonest Lewy is? DECLINED? COULD THEY HAVE EVEN USED THEM??? Even as soon as Feb. 1919, Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligence agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares: “Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.” (FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.) Mr. Aziz, contrary to the promises contrary to all promises never handed the documents to the British government who indeed was going to use them in an upcomming tribunal that never materialised. This claim of Lewy, which BTW he hasn't bothered sourcing is so ridiculous that it is as if he takes his readers as idiots. As for Malta, I have documented the entire cases by provided Turkish and British records in the section Fadix analysis. Just to add that the Foreign Office Near East specialist Edmonds who was following the cases very closely declared, "There is probably not one of these prisoners who does not deserve a long term of imprisonment if not capital punishment." (FO 371/6509/E8745 (folios 23-24)). The entire cases I document here for Wikipedians. Now, the more serious stuff, comming to Lewy, I really don't know how to do this without offending him or making this as if it wasn't an attack directed at him, but after the interview he gave in a Turkish newspaper and what he had said there, he has lost any credibility and I am convinced that some Turks that consider him as somehow a savior would have hoped that this interview never happened. I will ignore this for now. And concentrate on his statment, the man question the the military trials validity and twist other peoples word to fit his argument, and as I have shown here he is hardly credible in doing so and is exposed doing what he accuses Dadrian of having done. This is nothing with what I have seen in his book which when I have time will review entirly chapter by chapter and post in my userpage, unlike Holdwater the author of tallarmeniantale who slanders authors and use such mud throwing cheap tricks, I will rather comment what he wrote. Lewy claims that this evidences does not actually exist, this is very interesting, let say why. Lewy whrote in his book America in Vietnam, which I already reviewed I think here, if not I might post this review if requested that the Naval Investigative Service has investigated the accusations against the American marines in service and that Lewy wrote about the report itself and what was in it. The thing is, that there is not a single evidence anywhere that this report even exist, no one has ever seen it. Lewy later claimed, in the face of interogations, that he doesn't remember if he had actually seen the report or that someone talked about it. Do you imagine? He is aware of a record that no one else has ever known of, and he doesn't even remember if he has seen it? It has yet to be found. This man rely on something such, but yet claims that the evidence of the court martial does not exist at all, when the public trials procedings were published in the Ottoman official Gazette and are available and that he himself rely on something that it actually existed can't even be confirmed. But of course when it comes to denying the American personals war crimes in Vietnam he doesn't waste his time doing that.

Comming to his slanders against Dadrian, people should be aware that he also slanders the same way the historian Ward Churchill for his research on the destruction of American Indian communities. He answers to Churchill references of the uses of smallpox to infect American Indians by saying "He just makes things up." Of course it is much easier for Lewy to use such cheap tricks by directly slandering authors even though he is discredited in the process. And of course, I won't mention his claim that what happened to the Gypsies in World War II doesn't constitute a genocide and that he believes that the Holocaust is the only true instance of genocide.

By saying all of those, I officially makes an anouncement that I am back and will be contributing which is apparent from this answer. :) Fad (ix) 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of typing to avoidng having to concede you don't have a smoking gun. Painting dots, then asking people to connect them. The reason we argue over where the dots go is because the evidence of the sort I asked for does not exist. The documentation proves a policy of relocation, NOT of extermination. Those are the words of the preeminent authority on this. If you have documents to the contracy, present them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.60 (talk • contribs) .

Consilience speaks to how to approach a whole lot of dots. Shermer's article in the Skeptic on Holocaust Denial — and indeed the judge's summing up in the libel case David Irving brought — are relevant here. Far from being "weak evidence" and the lack of a "smoking gun" (again, these are heard from Holocaust deniers; if you don't want to hear this, don't use their arguments), the consilience of a very large number of small details and separate reports is very strong evidence indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the Armenian massacres and you post a whole paragraph about the Holocaust. This is an article about the Armenian massacres and there is a section called 'Similarities to the Holocaust'. This clumsy attempt at association and using 'Holocauset denial!' to silence (even though we are not talking about the Holocaust) would not exist if you were prepared to let the Armenian thesis stand on its own two feet. Stop borrowing (stealing) from the credibility of the Holocaust. Do you have an argument that in itself and of itself stands up to scrutiny? You are not going to silence me or historians with these tactics. Thoth is going to just have to deal with his frustration because until somebody presents empirical evidence to back the Armenian thesis, historians will keep disputing it. And as long as historians keep disputing it the validity of the opposing points of view endure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.143 (talk • contribs) .

I was, was I ? Oddly, this discussions of the Holocaust that you think I wrote doesn't appear in the actual words. As for what I did write about the historical methods used to study the Holocaust, and the means used to deny it, it seems to be eminently on point. I didn't select the arguments used by those who deny that the massacres of Armenians took place, and it seems in no sense an ad hominem to point out the similarities in method. Invalid arguments are invalid, wherever they happen to be used. Please remember to sign your comments (~~~~). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And having gotten Holocaust association out of the way, you are onto the second phase of the Armenian thesis - the denial strawman tactic. Nobody is denying that massacres occured. Pretending that is the position of people who disagree with you so you can easily knock it down is, again, somebody afraid to let their thesis try to stand on its own two feet. Disputing the circumstances or the appropriate label of the events is not to 'deny' the events. Now you can move onto the third method and tell us that all Western historians generally agree and barring a few diehard Turks it is a closed argument. This would only be true, of course, if you have yourself committed a massacre on the scores of Western historians mentioned on this page.

Armenian Legion

You guys should check out the topic on the Armenian Legion where a couple of Armenians and their sympathizers are trying to whitewash this criminal group of racist thugs. They are claiming that the Nazi collaborating Armenian legion saved Jews. LOL, its probably the joke of the century and a prime example of their attempt to distort history and mislead readers. Also, surprise, there is no mention of the murderous Armenian legion of the French Army, those convicts dressed in French army uniform who massacred thousands of moslem men, women and children from 1919 onwards! Lutherian 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No relevence to the Armenain Genocide article....though everything else you post is fictional - so why not just make up anything eh? --THOTH 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack redacted.Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Baseless personal attack redacted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please can we try and get this article to meet WP:NPOV. Let's discuss this frankly, without personal attacks. If we work together, we can make this a good article. --Sunfazer | Talk 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I declare that I will in no way use personal staments. I am here for a clean page. Devoid of propaganda and bias.

--Neurobio 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The page history (diff here) shows that the above comment was made by 85.178.46.152 (talk • contribs) who may or may not be Neurobio (talk • contribs). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

it is me i just forgot to log in. actually it seems that i dont know how to sign properly. --Neurobio

Should I be surprised ? Another user who forgets to log in and finds it difficult to type ~~~~. Let's pretend that I am. The downside of forgetting is that suspicious people, those who might suspect you or Lutherian, among others, of using anons for sockpuppetry or avoiding WP:3RR, would now know what IP address ranges — 85.176.0.0 - 85.182.127.255 for you and 85.0.0.0 - 85.0.223.255 for Lutherian — your ISPs are allocated. This would make any future forgetfulness very obvious, and someone would almost certainly remind you, or perhaps an admin, of your memory lapse. It might be for the best if you didn't forget again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

let me practice. Neurobio 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC) I learned it at last. Hurray!Neurobio 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NEW ARTICLE PROPOSAL

I propose forming a new article under the name; armenian massacre hoax Where us, opposed to nearly every sentence in this article can state our own point of wiew, keeping a back up of it against the certain vandalism it shall recieve, edit it together and eventually get it locked by some administrator to prevent future damage.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmr5555 (talk • contribs) .

Good idea, but that would be a POV fork. —Khoikhoi 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what - why don't you and David Irving get together on this one - perhaps you can draft a combined article. --THOTH 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your disagreements here. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A call for an ultimate solution

There is a simple solution to this entire charade. If our Armenian fellows are keen in their claims that Armenian genocide is an indisputable fact and there is abundant number of documents supporting their case, then I kindly ask them to show the courage and take their case to the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations for matters of genocide.

Our Armenian friends bring to the table the claims of mickey-mouse self-declared authorities (such as International Center for Transitional Justice, Permanent Peoples' Tribunal) which lack credibility and more importantly whose decisions are non-binding lacking enforcement power. So really, why not take your case to the International Court of Justice, or to the International Criminal Court and end this discussion for once and for all? If Turkey would be found guilty of ‘genocide’ at the International Court of Justice, she will be forced to recognize and pay reparations and that’ll be the end of it. This is the official way to affirm your claims. This is what Bosnians are doing (Bosnian Genocide); this is what’s happening for the case of Rwandan genocide.

Let me tell you why supporters of Armenian cause have not showed the courage to bring their case to the International Court of Justice yet: You don’t have a case for genocide. Sad but true.

It cannot be disputed that lots of and lots of people suffered, but simply mass casualties do not equate genocide. In order to make your case you have to show the intent for mass killings and ethnic cleansing, which does not exist (or yet to be proven). If you believe that has been proven already, then don’t lose one more day, appeal to the International Court of Justice, because it’s all what it takes to prove your case.

I understand that it’s rather easier for the Armenian lobby to buy or force cheap politicians and pass Genocide recognition legislations in parliaments of countries where Armenian Diaspora is powerful, but believe me that’s not going to do any good to the Republic of Armenia. Turkey would never ever accept your unsubstantiated claims (unless proven by an impartial study of historians, as suggested by the Turkish PM, or by a verdict of the International Court of Justice), even if you can manage to get a genocide legislation passed in the US Senate (which is quite unlikely). Sure, that might do some harm to Turkey, but it will hurt Republic of Armenia more as it’s doing now and this will make repairing the relations between Turkey and Republic of Armenia more and more difficult, if not impossible.

By the way, there is a recent scholarly article published in The Jerusalem Post authored by Guenter Lewy 'Was it genocide?', which I believe gives a good account of the current status.

I kindly ask not to cut in my post and add yours below. Deepblue06 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do organizations such as the United Nations appointed Permanent Peoples Tribunal, which was made up exclusively of historians, and the letter by the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" lack credibility? Guenter Lewy's repuation precedes him and reading the article is ever more superfluous as we already know what sort of verdict he supposedly "reaches" in the article. The fact that we have presented here, on other forums and elsewhere hundreds, if not thousands of accounts that attest to the fact (the unsubstantiated accounts you claim that don't exist) that what was occurring in 1915 was a plan to exterminate an entire race only underscores how poorly formulated your argument is in claiming that evidence for the Genocide is either weak or doesn't exist. We don't need an international court to verify an established truth and its even more ridiculous if you think the Armenian diaspora is an all-powerful lobby that foreign governments have simply succumbed to. I didn't think we were that robust :)--MarshallBagramyan 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't take the International Association of Genocide Scholars seriously mainly because of its leader Israel Charny who happens to have no background of research on the history of the Holocaust or Genocide. The guy has a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Rochester. An examination of the Social Sciences and some other bibliography databases reveals absolutely not a single research study under his name on the history of Holocaust or genocide in other nations, or for that matter on any other topic. So as a social science researcher Dr. Charny appears to have made no significant contribution to the research oriented academic community in his own disciplines.

His publication list shows mainly volumes that he has edited. Based on such a list, any serious academic researcher would be highly hard-pressed to accept the credentials of this fake scientist as a "genocide expert". He currently presents himself as the Executive Director of the "Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide" in Jerusalem. Despite the prestigious sounding title of this institute it is nothing more than an institute founded by Dr. Charny himself. It has no official connections to any Israeli university. Deepblue06 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is an interdiscipliary field and it has been such for quite some time now. Neither is Lifton who wrote his famous book 'The NAZI doctors' is a historian, psychiatrist by profession. Yes, indeed Israel Charny mostly has edited books, but there is nothing wrong there, to the contrary this is a good thing that someone like him head such an organization because he is an outsider in an interdiscipliary field in which there exist various scholars from various fields who specialise in different subjects. As an outsider he keep a general knowledge of each genocides. As for dismissing people on the bases that they are not historian. As long as someone has some graduate degree in a scientific discipline, it is enough for someone to get the knowledge on how the treat and compute information. History proper is a social science, not foundamental science. Fad (ix) 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Dr Charny can contribute the genocide studies from the perspective of his expertise clinical psychology. But when it comes to characterizing these historical events and discussing them within their contexts, it's unreasanoble to ask to take the word of Israel Charney over distinguished historians like Bernard Lewis, Gilles Veinstein, Justin McCarthy, etc. A scholar can convince me about his/her credibility in various ways (i) Affiliation with a respected university in a relevant field (e.g., English professors don't count) (ii) A solid publication record in respected journals in the field (journals that have high impact factors) (iii) at the very least having a PhD from a respected instituion in a relevant field. The fact is that Dr. Charny does not posses any of these qualifications. Deepblue06 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's simply non-sense. What is the proportion of Healt ministers who are physicians? Being the director of an organization only means that you have to speak in its name and not that you specialise on every subjects its members specialise on. You can not dismiss the scholars member of the organization just because the man representing it isen't a historian. I'd rather believe a mathematician or a physicist recycled in history than a historian in computing and treating information. As someone in a field of science, I know that standards to keep something as valide are much higher in science than social science like history. Justin McCarthy is not a distinguished historian, as of now, not many historian even consider him. No respected historian would ever contribute in a work published by a government that is accused of supressing freedom of speech, neither would any respected historian lecture and advice such a government the way he has done repeatdly and lastly months ago and who publicly lied during the panel following the documentary denying he has adviced the Turkish government when transcripts even in Turkish press have been published of his speech advising the Turkish government to persue and calling their ministry publication as what constitute the truth. That such a distinguished Ottomanist as Colin Imber in an already corrupted field has called one of the most recent book of McCarthy as 'Junk food, junk bonds and now junk history' begs to the question on if that man is such a good historian, how a distinguished historian in his field, the field from which you will find most of those who question the genocide (like Veinstein) question the Armenian genocide (Ottomanist, Turkologist by 'opposition' to Armenologist) would be so extremist of the work of his colleague? As for Bernard Lewis, he has yet to answer the letter requesting him to say why he changed his position (amazingly after the middle east departement started recieving grants from Ankara), while in his major work has called what happened to the Armenians as Holocaust. Fad (ix) 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, so far nobody except MarshallBagramyan adressed my question which started this thread. If Armenian cause believes that they have an indusputable case for genocide then why not take it to an International court solve it once and for all. MarshallBagramyan simply said that they don't need a validation from an International Court (though it's the only way to get what you want). I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective on this issue. Deepblue06 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I ignored it, because it is a rhetoric repeated by the zombie-like masses who buy the governments mass psychosis without even questioning it. I have answered this countless numbers of times. Everytime someone ask this, it somehow disqualify him and show him as a total ignorant about the matter. The answer is simple. THERE EXIST NO SUCH COURT WHERE ONE CAN JUDGE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD! THE HAGUE REQUIRES PARTIES AND PEOPLE TO JUDGE. This is exactly why the Turkish republic who has signed the genocide convention hasn't still made the martial court documents available. They are well aware that while now that the perpetrators are dead it would take a confirmation of the records of the martial court. It is like bringing someone to court for the murder of a person, when that someone happen to be already dead. The only legal report that could have been used to form such an international tribunal was the report prepared in the 70s, which could have been used even though the perpetrators already died, taking the subject as rather a historic accurance than directly judging the killers. But guess what??? GUESS WHAT??? Turkey randered that report unapplicable by pressuring the UN, TEN YEARS until the entire report, the only one of its kind is rendered inapplicable. But, I can expect, again and again that ignorants that start writting what they think they have discovered even if it has nothing to do with the article, will repeat this old rhetoric. Fad (ix) 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The International Court of Justice does not require perpetrators to be present. It looks at the disputes between countries. For your information, Hitler was not present during Nuremberg Trials. The fact is that because Armenian cause does not have a case for genocide, they go after politicians, TV stations, newspapers rather than taking their case to an International Court or listening what real historians have to say, end of story. Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective. Deepblue06 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing that I still waste my time with people that have no clue of what they are talking about. Internationa Court of Justice DO NEED PERPETRATORS, you can ask to any jurists, I can refer you to a departement of international law of a reputable university and copypast what I have written here. stop pulling my legs and pretend that you are actually saying something. During the Nuremberg, people were trialled and faced justice, Hitler didn't recieve any sentence, those in the prison cells DID. The same goes with the NAZI prisoners in Soviet camps. Stop wasting my time with made up things to pretend that you have anything valuable here. Fad (ix) 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. International Court of Justice looks at the disputes between the states, not individuals. May be looking at the following article would help you understand it.[15]

Let me quote a part of the article.

The General Assembly can, pursuant to article 96 of the UN Charter, ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the retroactive application of the Genocide Convention. In this connection, Armenia, as every State party to the Genocide Convention, could invoke article VIII of the Convention and request the General Assembly `to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate'.

Even without such an advisory opinion by the ICJ, the Government of Armenia, as a State party to the Genocide Convention, could invoke article IX of the Convention and submit a dispute to the ICJ, requesting a determination that the massacres against the Armenians constitute `genocide' within the meaning of the Convention. States parties to the Convention, including Turkey, are bound by Article IX which stipulates: `Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.'

The International Court of Justice must include two conflicting parties, which was the Ottman Armenians, which in this cases, the remainings, the Diaspora, and the Ottoman Empire. Armenia under law is not a conflicting party, the only thing Armenia could do is to engage Turkey to get Kars back, but for that to happen both Armenia and Turkey should agree, only in instances such as war crimes can a party be forced in, and only when criminals are implied this can be possible. The criminals are dead, the only report that could have been used and initiated by the UN was randered inapplicable thanks to Turkey. What you are saying doesn't make the slighest sense. The reason why this was brought before the Permanent People's tribunal was because that tribunal judge historic cases without having to bring accused on court. It is always easy to claim and request something when that something isen't possible. There are no international court that exist under Hague that would decide the applicability of the term genocide, such courts judge criminals and not the applicability of a term. And Rwanda actually is a clear such cases or the courts initiated for the crimes under the Kmer Rouge regime. If you don't know of what you are talking about, just don't talk about it. And before copying and pasting stuff understand what they are about. Fad (ix) 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no hope of changing your views, my job is to help unbiased readers undestand the issue, and I think it's well done. I'm not here to educate you on this topic, so I'm not going to further respond to this discussion especially given your attitude. Deepblue06 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not expert in international organizations etc but I personally think the demand for land hardens the case. Also stating this issue as "established truth" in discussions won't help, because it automatically stops the dialogue. How can you argue? And without dialogue this issue will get bitter and bitter. I think the solution should not push for a forced acceptance of a government by foreign parliament decisions and policy games. That only creates more defensive response at Turkish side and enmity between people. I read some USA forums where Armenians were saying ASALA was right. I actually fear to encounter any Armenians if I go to France or USA. So if they kill me there, will they say "Good. They killed our people"?? I even didn't punch someone in my life! The real solution (which I don't say I know how) should go for peace and understanding between the two people. Otherwise even one day there would be that gain of land, there would be no guarantees for peace after that. --Gokhan 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me where any demand for land is referenced or called for in the article. Additionally show me where any Turk today is accused of having mass murdered Armenians. Genocide denial (and actions to continue obliteration of culture and memory of a people) however are considered to be perpetuation of genocide...so perhaps you do meet the definition of a genocider - certainly a genocide denier, revisionist and perpetuator of lies and untruths...at the very least you are rude, unfeeling and obnoxious - in that you continue to deny the slaughter of innocents...and insult the descendents of survivors of this great tragedy. Imagine how a Jewish descendent of a Holocaust survivor would think of one such as you if you were denying that the Nazis commited any criminal acts against thier kin and that you instead blamed the victims themselves and called their cries for recognition and attonement a hoax or worse...and BTW I have had actual constructive diologue with Turks on this issue before and I also have travelled to and within Turkey numerous times and have many Turkish friends - so I understand diologue and I understand human interactions - etc --THOTH 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Deepblue06 (talk • contribs) is another editor who appears to have no understanding of how history is written. Legal standards of evidence and proof are simply off-point in historical discussions, just as mathematical or philosophical proof is irrelevant. Examination_of_Holocaust_denial#Burden_of_proof refers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my call is simple. If our Armenian friends believe that their claims are indusputable, then take it to an International Court of Justice, just like Jew had done, just like Bosnians are doing, just like what's happening for Rwandan genocide. This is how it works. If the court finds Turkey guilty of genocide, she will have to recognize it and pay reparations, end of discussion. But the Armenian cause supporters are yet to show the courage and take their case to an International court, because they know and we know it, they don't have a case for genocide. Deepblue06 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

and another person who uses the word "genocide" which is a description in the international law and then lectures that historians write history. (well not only historians if they support the armenian thesis. look at orhan pamuk(novelist), ragip zarakoglu(publisher), Taner akcam(economist) all in the article here. but when it comes to turkis thesis the article states "A small number of Western academics, few of whom could be considered authorities on the matter" so for armenians historians and turkish specialists are not good enough. but For armenian thesis anyone is wellcome) So the events will be presented by historians but the term can be only used afer a verdict! thats the armenian way to promote the issiue as a fact. Neurobio 11:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A researcher about a particular event isen't above anyone else just because he is an historian. What is foundamental here is researchers know what is research and how to compute data. Most researchers that maintain the Turkish government thesis are not historians. Kamuran Gurun, Turkaya Ataov and I can cite the rest are either political scientists or diplomats. Many in political science recycle themselves and start writting history related stuff and Lewy is an example. And, it is a small number of accademic, we can't start modifying this to mislead readers. Fad (ix) 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some might conclude that your demonstrated ability to miss the point was a sign of bad faith; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Genocide is a word and, except where Humpty Dumpty is concerned, words have meanings, sometimes singular, sometimes not. When the word genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, not obviously an Armenian or Turk, he had particular events in mind as the exemplars of the crime of barbarity. In normal English genocide must include the massacres of the Armenians since the originator of the term defined it way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And as long as there is no mention of the vicious crimes that the Armenians committed against moslems during that period, the definition is just plain liquid camel fodder Lutherian 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made this point (concerning Lemkin) explicitly in the talk pages numerous times and have stated that there is no legitimate point of disagreement with aknowledging the Armenian Genocide as such...--THOTH 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, would you like a medal?Lutherian 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but it should be prominent in the article, not included in the aimless meanderings where it sits now. My understanding is that Lemkin wrote on the subject in the 30s; it would be useful to quote from his earlier works, if possible, and to footnote the existing reference citing his 1946 article. The existing one I can do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fadix likely has a complete set of references, I have some as well that I can check into. We have already posted some quotes on the talk pages - including where he discusses his reasoning specifically concerning the Armenian Genocide that greaty influenced his quest to not only develop a proper lexicon to describe such acts of ethncally focused mass killing - but specifically as well in regards to his campaign to see Turkey sign the United Nations accord concerning genocide. These quotes should already be in the archives of this talk page. I'm not sure what exists specifically quoting his statements from the 1930s - however he refers to his thinking of that time in later interviews and such. BTW - Thanks for your concern/interest and insights into this issue - as well as the perspective on historical truth and such that you have brought to this talk page over the last few days - it has been a refreshing change from the usual and most helpful as well IMO (so sorry about any vitrol directed your way out of frustration and what I perciev(ed) as wiki policy to give equal say (in this historical piece) to fiction writers and such (as witnessed by past involvement in this issue). I must say that dealing with the denialist naysayers has been quite taxing. Fadix obviously bears the brunt of it...and sometimes from all sides. Obviously no two people will ever agree on everything - particularly an issue this complex and politically charged. --THOTH 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I didnt realize that the word of a Pole was that of God, are you confusing him with the pope maybe? Just because he coined the term doesnt mean the Ottoman Turks committed genocide but you sure make it soound like its God himself who spoke! Its like those phoney genocide scholars who think they have a monopoly on the truth! Truly pathetic! Lutherian 15:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed, User:Lutherian, when it comes to definitions of genocide, disinterested editors will favour Lemkin's views, and those of other experts in the field, over mere opinions by non-experts such as you or I. Calling something "phoney" doesn't make it so: WP:RS and WP:V refer. If and when you are an expert, with published papers and books on the subject, then your opinion will be valuable. Lemkin is a reliable source, end of argument. And don't forget, should you be tempted to treat us to an irrelevant non-sequitur, non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Angy yer all hyper and full swing with this genocide joke, did someone touch a raw nerve or somethin? There are plenty of scholars that reject the genocide thesis but you and your protégés are busy discrediting them so I hope you do understand that I take anything you or your genocide pals say with a grain of salt! Lutherian 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This Lemkin argument is more semantic word-mongering. If I define a word, lets say wiken, as being "a mammal that walks on two legs", then explain it with examples such as a human or a fish - that does not mean a fish is a wiken (for a fish is not a mammal that walks on two legs), it just means that I do not know what what a fish is. "The destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" - was there a premeditated policy of this, that is the question. Just because Lemkin invented the word and may be of the opinion that this was the sort of thing that happened to the Armenians does not make him the outright authority on what did happen the the Armenians. As a legal man rather than a historian, his view on the events around the Armenian massacres carry no more weight than my views on the appropriate categorisation of fish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.143 (talk • contribs) .

The above was previously removed as 'irrevelant'. If you wish to discuss Lemkin within the context of the Armenian massacres it is certainly NOT irrelevant to point out he was not a historian. Irrelevant is not the same as inconvenient. Do not spread the edit war that has caused the article to be locked into here, least of all under a section calling for a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lutherian (talk • contribs) .

Your analogy is simply ridiculous. For Lemkin the Armenian genocide was not just a cases where his term apply, but rather it was part of his definition of the word. Which means that every events that are like the Armenian cases are genocides. Claiming that for him it was just an example is not to understand his work. He was a jurist and Jurisprudence are constituants references part of how law should be applied. As for the claim that he wasn't a historian. Genocide is a legal word with legal implications, Lemkin already engaged in the study of the Armenian cases back when he was a student in Lvov University in 1920. Also, neither Lewy is a historian, he is a political scientist. Fad (ix) 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words a tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against the individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."

His comment about Armenians was further explanation of the definition, not the definition - Lemkin giving a flawed example (not being a historian) does not suddenly change the history of that example. For the Armenian Massacres to be a Genocide, according to the above defintion (LEMKIN'S DEFINITION) requires that there was a coordinated plan towards the destruction of a nation of an ethnic group. Unless Lemkin can demonstrate that happened to the Armenians, his example is meaningless. The logic of the analogy is clear to anything who chooses to see it.

Lewy is not a historian? He has had several historical works published. The man, as well as being a Professor of Political Science, is a professional historian. I cannot believe you are quibbling over this. Perhaps your inability to grasp the meaning of historian explains the same for the meaning of Genocide.

Moving forward, frankly, I do not care what you call it, as long as the body of text is agreeably objective. I do think the most sensible thing all round is to go with the Genocide Convention of 1948 definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.143 (talk • contribs) .

You are contradicting yourself, you dismiss authors because they are not graduate in history and then call Lewy a historian because he wrote historical books. I do agree that writting historic books which are researched can be used to call one a historian. But that you decide who is the historian again reflects your clear double standard. Also, I haven't seen you comment my answer about Lewy twisting of two British commissionar to dismiss the martial court, you should take a closer look at it and tell me after that how such a man could even be considered as credible, not forgetting how he slandered another historian who researched American Indian genocides the way he has done with Dadrian because he still thinks that only he's people genocide qualify as genocide. But it isen't surprising that we would always find such soubful characters denying the Armenian genocide under the banner of neutrality. Comming to Lemkin, his text reffering to the Armenians is titled Genocide and explains what a genocide is, the Armenian cases is used as Jurisprudence and legally speaking is part of the definition, this is how basically Jurisprudence works. I also already posted a text from his unofficial autobiography which you are aware of since you vandalised it. Fad (ix) 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting very tedious. Firstly, you did not even address the issue of how to move on. This suggest you have no real interest in moving on, just arguing for its own sake with scant regard to the task of actually creating an objective wiki article.

The Lewy issue you are talking about is back up in another section entirely - the point of that section was merely to point out that yes, there is a legitimate dispute and the Armenian Massacres are not a closed case. The back and forth between Dadrian and Lewy confirms this beyond any shadow of a doubt. And frankly, any reading the exchange between Dadrian and Lewy at http://www.meforum.org/article/895 would have to be biased beyond all reason to not accept that Lewy tore any credibility he had to shreds, and did so using Dadrian's own citations. Given that Dadrian is your champion and, how did you put it, "greatest Armenian scholar in the study of the genocide", then this really does leave any suggestion that there is not a legitimate debate dead in the water.

Lewy = Historian (he writes books you would find in the history section); Lemkin = Not a Historian (he writes books you would not find in the history section). Is this clearer?

If Lemkin can demonstrate that the CUP coordinated plans towards the destruction of a nation of an ethnic group, I will accept that his example was valid.

I do not know what you mean by 'vandalised', but if the suggestion is I have removed or altered the input of anyone else on either the article or the discussion page I would assure you this is not the case and remind you that edits are logged. If 'vandalised' is wiki slang for something else, then I apologise for the assumption that you were accusing me baselessly.

Given the absense of a response of how to move ahead, I will abandon any attempt to take part in this project. I will check back at in the near future to see how you all got on. Goodbye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.143.

You are jocking, the exchange between Lewy and Dadrian is nothing out of impressing. This sort of exchange might interest those that are impressed with repeated footnotes and giving the impression that we back up things but for those that know the subject at hand, Lewy has no credibility there. And you should, like I said go read my answer to Lewy claim about the Martial court. He twist and reinterprete two British commissionars words to discredit the martial court and make this as if they are criticizing the validity of the charges against the accused ones, when I provided records and reports from those two individuals that explains why they questioned the credibility, which was because while there was evident guilt many were just released and files incriminating many people were just disapearing. I pointed to an example where one of the two individuals reported that 41 prisoners were released by the Ottoman government, when there was evidences that all of them were guilty. Lewy fabricates totally, the same way that he fabricated the report about the US marines in his book about Vietnam, the so-called three pilliars of the Armenian genocide. He also uses cheap tricks by insinuating that Dadrians meant or implied things which he may or may not have implied, it is abound in his book. Of course Lewy also did the same the Chruchill the American historian who documented the destruction of American Indians and claimed that Chruchill just made up things. As for Dadrian being my champion, well call it that, I think that Dadrian is a great scholar a valuable, very valuable scholar who has published countless numbers of articles using various sources including Turkish. I guess Lewy just because he wrote one article and one book (which BTW is pass dated of at least 10 years with few minor upgrades, more particularly to slander Dadrian in a 'polite' way) thinks that by some imputed insinuations that Dadrian supposedly had he has 'won' some sort of victory paint a picture of him, as a donkeyshot. You should read the interview he gave to the Turkish press and then come back and tell me if after what he said there, he could be considered as someone who took the matter with impartiality. He have yet to explain who translated his Turkish materials when he doesn't master the language unlike Dadrian. As for my accusation of vandalism, if you keep forgetting to sign your name, I will keep accusing you of that anonymous user AKA Lutherian. Lastly, about Lemkin, Genocide is a legal term, Jurisprudence is a legal matter, lawyer and jurists research events, crimes are handled by jurists. If you think that by claiming that he is not a historian you are dismissing him, you are in the wrong. He started researching that matter while it was happening in 1915, and it convinced him to be a lawyer, he researched it back in 1920 and discussed it with his professor and wondered about the prevention of such crimes. This is a legal matter like the term is a legal term. Now you can pull my leggs all you want and reycling your story it won't make any differences. Now that this is settled, can we talk about the article? Fad (ix) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

despite your effords to blurr the fact that Genocide is really an issiue in law this topic can only be named as "Armenian Genocide Claim" untill there is a verdict in an international court! Go back to the question So really, why not take your case to the International Court of Justice, or to the International Criminal Court and end this discussion for once and for all?Neurobio 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your passport, I thought you will provide me a copy? You just dismissed yourself with the above proposition. And BTW, I did answer to his ridiculous request and explained why it was ridiculous. Have a nice day. Fad (ix) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim it wasn't genocide. The burden of proof, that is to show that Lemkin et al are wrong, is for you to meet. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." Far from having exceptional evidence, all you have are second-hand holocaust denier debating tricks; in this case, to confuse legal and historical proof. Try harder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" - now Anglus has been reduced to the position of advising others the onus is on them to prove a negative and spitting out holocaust denier every other post. It is ridiculous. Nowhere in the world does the onus rest with the accused.

As for Fadix, 'I will keep accusing you of that anonymous user AKA Lutherian" - so you have no reason to believe I am Lutherian despite a DESIRE to believe it and you will keep 'accusing' in the absence of anything at all to suggest I am Lutherian. I guess you arrived at your historical conclusions in the same way.

Therein lies the mentality of the people pushing the Armenian thesis of this article. Faith-based allegations. I will not even bother checking back to see how you all got on. There is nothing serious going on here. You have failed entirely in the task of this article.

In closing, I guess you will also claim that Hilmar was just as insidious as Lewy in saying "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value."

Or even Professor Malcolm Yapp "The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system."

There is a pattern emerging of other historians blowing Dadrian off as a deceiver. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.232.143 (talk • contribs) .

There's ample evidence in reliable sources. Try Google Books here. Try Google Scholar here. Not much debate and controversy on offer there, Lewy and his fellows notwithstanding. Anyone can find reliable sources discussing the fact of the matter, and it is easy enough to find critiques of the deniers' case. You want all that to be ignored, so that your own point of view, which lacks any semblance of broad academic support, is given prominence. That means that is you who wants to make the extraordinary, unsupportable claims: that no genocide took place, that the word genocide is incorrect, and so on. The burden of proof lies with you, to show why the vast body of academic work on the matter should be discarded. Oh yes, ad hominem might be helpful. Still no facts on offer from the denialists, how very like old times on alt.revisionism. Pleased to see you still haven't mastered signing your posts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Twisting my words again? If you don't want others suspecting you and really await from people to check the history of contributions and making the differences between all the different IP addresses you would have used your other logins. Also isen't it amazing that this new anonyma you are is so obstinently trying to discredit Dadrian with the materials used by our dear pall Holdwater AKA Torque? Well, I do admit I think it's my pall Torque there. :) And his pall, or else why would all those anonymous users had attempted to get my friends tallarmeniantale website back down here reinculding it repeatdly in the article? Why would it be else, that Mr. Deepblue add this mistakes which is proper to Holdwater in the article about Dadrian [16] claiming that he bases his cases on the Andonians, when he wrote a single paper on the subject . :) I see that you still like to use your favoured term 'onus' back from the forum genocide.com. :)

Well, Fadix you're hallucinating. But from the archieves I understand that this is not the first time you falsely accuse others. I did not respond to your personal attacks so far but congratulations! you managed to piss me off: Unless you can prove that I made the above edit about Dadrian as you accuse (or unless you apologize for your mistake), I declare you as a psycho paranoid liar. I was not planning to get involved any more in this non-sense, because it's becoming clear that this is only a waste of my time. I think our discussion above and the archieves reveals very well how incapable you're in engaging in any civilized discussion, and how you act as somebody knows-it-all but in fact cannot backup his arguments after two iterations: I ask others to read our discussion on International Court of Justice above. By the way, Armeninan Foreign Ministy announced today that they are considering applying to an international court [17] (well, I don't believe they'll show the courage to do that, but that's another story). So go ahead talk to your government and explain that they cannot do it, as you tried to 'argue' above. So long. Deepblue06 03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed it was a mistake, I was addressing to 82.145.232.143, AKA Lutherian who obstinently in the past tried re-adding tallarmeniantale website. I got mixed up between both usernames. My Mr.Deepblue should have been read as Mr. Lutherian, and my belief about you should have been Mr. Deepblue=Neurobio. As for this time around the victim of my mistake shall not recieve any apology unless he apologise for his continual slanders against my person. True the archieves reveal a lot a thing, I advice any real new visitors to read them so that they can see how this campagn of character assassination against my person from hate mongerings that are not here to contribute but only inject their venom is not substantiated. Oh and, about the international court, they have yet to say under which Hague article they are about to do this, because there is no such dispositions and I have already proposed you to provide you the email address of a reputable international law institute from a reputable University. Fad (ix) 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations, I am certainly not 82.145.232.143 or any of the other users that you have recently accused me of being! You have this habit of attempting to falsly discredit others that dont agree with you, its very annoying and I would appreciate it if you would put and end to it! Lutherian 04:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Hilmar Kaiser, thanks to provide me the occasion once more to show how dishonest is Lewy. Hilmar Kaiser position about the Armenian genocide isen't any less than Dadrian's and things have settled between those tow scholars, something which was sparked by Dadrians work about German complicity which Hilmar Kaiser answered rather harshly. But of course if you take Hilmar Kaiser critic about this issue than it would be way much more against your position because he claims that there was no such German complicity as Dadrian has suggested and that the Ottoman Turks have to share all the blame. As for Yapp, oh sure, how many more reviews has he written about works covering the genocide? Balakian work too. You should read his review about the book, wich had nothing to do with the book. Dadrian answer to Yapp was exceptional nothing to be compared with his later lazy answer to Lewy. You should read it and come back. I already suggested you this while you were using your Torque alias. Don't you remember? :) Fad (ix) 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

fadix I took time and wrote you a lot of things in the upper section. didnt you see. I am not that stupid to give a copy of my pass to an anonymous person. Would you give me yours? read what i wrote and close this talk. dont push me into personal talk.

Again this page is hopeless since no one proposes a road map. my proposal is to go step by step. lets talk by proceding from head line to headline. still it is not enough I propose we should ask non Turkish and non armenian "refrees" to help, withness and decide on the issiue. I propose we call some admin people to withness the discussion and close the deal. Otherwise this page will never be complete. Please everyone stop being personal. Show your good will. Neurobio 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really expect me to answer your other empty answer? Dude, you know I know you simply are making things up. You proposed to copy your passport for me. I have checked on the databases for a Post Stroke depression PhD thesis for the last few years, and had nothing corresponding to you in the major departements of neuroscience in German Universities, yes, of course I have also checked the proposed thesis in German too. If you do not trust me, you should not have proposed to copy your passport. You have some explanations to do. :) As for referees, there has been countless numbers of administrators on this pages and the result has been the same. What you say to bring this to the Arbcom, will you be satisified then? Fad (ix) 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack redacted per WP:NPA, WP:RPA. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

fadix.. he just accuse every one every thing from all over the world of being same person on same conspiracy. from a Greek fadix take advice and stop making your self a joke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.108.135.13 (talk • contribs) .

Whois output for 212.108.135.13 here. A tourist obviously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So a clear version. You are playing your game here by terorising and harassment! Everybody is a Turkish spy here. every other sourse is fake. Every other historian is a pro-turk getting money. And you the lone warrior, fighting them by trying to find peoples name! as long as you are here this page will stay as a useless waste.Neurobio 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is the answer I recieve from someone who lied from day one. Doesn't still explain about your non-existing thesis. Fad (ix) 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[Redacted per WP:NPA & WP:RPA by Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)] --TürkİntikamTugayı 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You are playing a very dangerous game here. So now that everything has been attempted to shut me off (including the death threats by email), I guess now it is time to Hunt me down? TürkİntikamTugayı, you are playing a very dangerous game here, you may or may not be the hacker 'TürkİntikamTugayı' I just hope for you that you don't live in Canada since such actions might very well end up with a court cases, don't believe that just because you are under a pseudonym that you can do whatever you want. Also just consider that you aren't helping your friend causes and that what you are attempting is enought for a Checkusers and a ban against you. And BTW, I am not her, just warning you so that the coward you are doesn't start threatning her. Fad (ix) 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Get a life Holdwater, that German wife of yours must be very unsatisfied :) --Eupator 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

wow. Here you withness one of the cheapest attacks in Wikipedia history? Oh where is out attack and troll hunter? at holiday obviously! This is not a hate site my dear go there. and follow the talk more carefully neurobio 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment of a reader

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

Wikipedia is a rapidly growing encyclopedia, where people express their views and the knowledge and in particular on historical subjects, which may or may not be correct. I am a reader and decided to take a look at the material regarding the Armenian genocide and since it is being disputed I just wanted to see the opinions. Well, it looks like a mess, NOT readable, crossed views and personal attacks, etc. I think it is not supposed to be in the form of a Forum, which it obviously turned into.

The point basically comes down to whether the events can be called a genocide or not. In my opinion, it does not really matter which tag we put on it, especially that the lives of people cannot be returned.

Shell we think about what happened to the people? How did it happen that the huge Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire greatly reduced in numbers? What happened and how? Simple questions that need thinking and critical approach. Let's understand this, think about it, read the available sources and then argue. Once we are more or less sure about the numbers (of people before and after the mass killings) then we can think how to call it. I think one can be as simple as this. At least it may help more than just endlessly arguing and attacking each other.

Vahan Senekerimyan Vahan Senekerimyan 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all genocide is the correct term. There is no real dispute in using this term. This is the term whereby these events are known and it is the term that has been defined that exactly describes what occured to the Armenians. This is proven and is indisputable. As for the numbers and as for argueing and presenting sources and such - well I think that if you peruse these talk pages from the beginning you will see that a preponderounce of evidence and sources has been presented which indiputably corraborates the postition of genocide and the events and corraborated eyewitness testimony to prove such. What the Turkish side has primarily countered with here is opinion and personal attacks. Most of the counter assertions presented are laughable and unsupportable in any type of scholarly sense. What has occured here from this has been argument, vandalism and unproductive obscuration of the relevant facts by persons with a very specific agenda to do so and to sheild others from the truth of this matter. Sure - the article itself is incomplete and poorly written and organized with undue emphasis on certain aspects and incomplete or missing information (such as a whole section on eyewitnesses and how the knowledge concerning the Armenian Genocide is known). There also needs to be a seperate and very specific article on Turkish denial of this genocide. This talk page should be for discussion of these things - including discussion of environmental and circumstansial issues. But fundementally to be getting wrapped around the issue of whether or not to call it a genocide and to question whether or not the CUP/Ottoman Turkish government committed such against the Armenians is arguing non-issues and wasting time and space - exactly what the deniers want BTW. --THOTH 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated in my previous post, I suggested people thinking a bit about what happened to the Armenians those years, reading material and then arguing. The suggestion was not directed particularly to the Armenians in this page or the Turks but to all instead. We have to agree on numbers first - how many people lived in the Empire and how many survived. As far as I am concerned even at this step there are contradictions - the numbers from different sources (Turkish, Armenian, Western) do not agree with each other. This is an obstacle, so needs careful attention.

It is my fault that I did not read all the pages here, sorry, I just could not, there is too much arguing about nonrelevant things, I can't take it.

I am afraid you miss an important aspect: the Turks of today DO dispute the fact of the genocide, and you can see it in this talk page. If you or other scholars dealing with this issue are not going to argue about the events being genocide or not then you may not expect the Turks to ever consider the case. That genocide is accepted by different countries does not imply it will be accepted by Turkey. And guess which country is the most important to accept it? It is Turkey. If they reject it, then any action from the Armenian side will be enforcement, and as you may expect it may have negative consequences for today's Armenia. It already has. Think about it, consider the geopolitical aspects. To do it in a civilized manner I am afraid you have to question the facts and try to understand the position of the Turkish side. There is no way around.

That you say the fact of genocide is proven and indisputable means ignoring the fact of almost 100 years of ongoing denial. What do you mean it is proved? Whether the Young Turk government commited this crime is indeed am extremely important issue, and NO it is not a waste of time to consider it. There should have been archives unless the Young Turks got rid of them after the war. Do you know anything about it, did the Young Turks eliminate their archives? Is there anything pointing to it? If yes, please elaborate, I am not familiar with this.

As for what the deniers want I have no idea, I so far met Turks who simply either do not know about the events or can not accept them for one reason or another. What I do know is that one needs to consider their points and try to understand them. Again, they are the ones to accept the genocide, if we cannot talk to them then YES we do waste time.

Vahan Senekerimyan 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See, even a fellow Armenian disagrees with you although if you ask Fadix, the poster is probably a Turkish nationalist in guise of an Armenian, LOL Lutherian 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "genocide" as part of the title of or as a description of the Armenian Genocide is not a matter of opinion - it is a matter of correct a prioper usage of the word. Thus its use in this context is established. --THOTH 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add something small for the solution section with Napoleon's famous words when he tried to invade Ottoman empire, his assistant suggests him to tear the empire apart by awaring the self consciousness of the minorities, and adds: "But the hardest of all would be Armenians since they are the most loyal to Turks." Napoleon adds: "Let's put some bloodshed between them!"... This seems to be a summery of today's western post imperialism, that instead of a mutual communication (which is prevented), western nations are trying to attempt on making both countries more hostile towards each other each day and blocking contact between Turkey and Armenia(example of a country for this category? FRANCE).Thus, the only solution for this problem SHOULD be found between the governments of ONLY ARMENIA & TURKEY, instead of a western nation which is aiming to create more tension among two groups that are culturally so much alike, but torn apart for the reason of western imperialist interventions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.103.29.111 (talk • contribs) .

Relevance of this comment? Seems to me you are talking about Turkish - Armenian State relations. I for one an not an Armenian citizen...furthmore the subject here is the Armenian Genocide. And besides - I thought it was for historians to decide...oh sorry - that was last months evade/excuse...--THOTH 13:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing before discussing

What happened to the rule of not editing before additions are discussed in the talk-page, the pro-genocide team has now inserted several un-discussed and clearly bias statements. Are these going to be withdrawn or we can start reverting? Hittit (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What a joke. You are doing exactly the same. Sardur (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note, when bringing the article, let's call it, "start" position to the point before the disruptive changes were made (by, for instance, you) isn't changing but reverting changes.

If you are not going to discuss a value-adding change to the article, do not spam the talk-page by opening new paragraphs that lead to nowhere. Aregakn (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)