Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Using this document as a significant source?

You know, I wonder if using this letter: http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm may be a very effective way to begin this wiki entry. The first few paragraphs summarize the situation much more effectively for me (an objective observer) than the first few in the entry. The letter is linked to in the first paragraph (in the notes) however I wonder if it can be quoted or paraphrased more fully and prominently. Starting with paragraph 2 of the letter the information is clear and well written. Whereas this wiki article modifies the "consensus" by saying that "the sheer scale of the death toll is a major reason for calling it a genocide" (or something to that effect), this letter does not mention that as a primary reason.

Seriously this letter needs a very prominent link, perhaps in the article itself.

"It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides,[3][4] as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.[5]"

-- This paragraph needs a period after "[4]".

("...genocides[3][4]. Many sources point to...")

Bad article, replete with POV, selective citations etc

Lots of hearsay presented as fact.

For instance, the "Special Forces" - The only historian who has carried out a complete study on this group, Philip Stoddard, contends they were uninvolved in the relocations. Gwynne Dyer, another historian who has been through both the Ottoman and Ottoman military archives dismisses allegations of their involvement as "gossip".

Yet this is overlooked - only sources that support the pro-Armenian point of view are supplied. The veracity of those sources has been questioned by other historians. Guenter Lewy, for example, has highlighted where Dadrian has used carefully placed elipsing to create misleading statements, confessions etc.

Another example is the Hitler quote - there is no proper mention that this is a highly disputed issue. The version of the speech in which Hitler purportedly said "Who today speaks of the Armenians?" (US evidence 28) was not authenticated at Nuremburg - two other versions (US29, US30) which did not contain that line were instead deemed the authentic text.

It is frequently claimed that Bardakjian has sourced the quote, but when one follows the trail it leads back to the same documentation that was not accepted at Nuremberg.

This quote is proven to be FALSE, see Tom Segev article: Mozart and the Armenian Genocide, HAARETZ, 19/10/2007 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914602.html

But this is just another prof for the obvious BIAS of Wikipedia. WHY Wikipedia is so ready to accept when the claims are thrown with no basis from Armenian side? Why can't we ask the proof for all these numbers, quotes, etc. in terms of REAL DOCUMENTS not a circular, recursive, hearsay reference system that the Armenian Genocide industry has built. SHAME ON Wikipedia for being part of this for years and still continuing to be.

These are just two examples - after only a cursory read through the article I could go on for hours, but my intent is to draw attention to the general tone rather than specifics.

I think it needs to be kept in mind that this is an article, not part of a recognition campaign.

One other problem with a quote. The "retaliating against a pro-Russian fifth column."[42] comment is impossible. It is claimed to be from the relevent time period, but the "fifth column" originated during the Spanish Civil War almost 20 years later. How could an Ottoman official in 1915-1917 quote a Spanish radio broadcast from 1936?

Genocide photo of children

the source ("Wallstein Verlag") tells that it has no date. So it can taken from any other period. It's not verifiable. And if Wegner did take this photo, he would surely know when he took the photo's. And why is this photo unknown to ANI (see:http://www.armenian-genocide.org/photo_wegner.html)
These are all signs wikipedia is using a fake-photo.
If wikipedia is serious, it doesn't accept photo's with such dubious matters (unknown date). +when I wrote this, I read below in screen: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.... So wikipedia tells this about verifiability, and then uses photo's with dubious matters.Chonanh 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

references to concentration camps

I want to verify this matter:
Process and camps of deportation
Others are said to have been used only as temporary mass burial zones—such as Radjo, Katma, and Azaz—that were closed in Fall 1915.[22] Some authors also maintain that the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ra's al-'Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days.[22]

• ^ a b c d e (French) Kotek, Joël and Pierre Rigoulot. Le Siècle des camps: Détention, concentration, extermination: cent ans de mal radica. JC Lattes, 2000 ISBN 2-7096-1884-2

----- On which pages we can find this about:

• It is believed that twenty-five major concentration camps existed under the command of Şükrü Kaya, one of the right hands of Talat Pasha.[22]
• As with Jewish kapos in the concentration camps, the majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.[22]

(This book has 805 pages.) Without pages mentioned this nazi-connection can not be verified.Chonanh 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence in this book on the existence of camps it is purely fiction. It states they existed stating the commanders there is tracable reference.

Unsupported claim!

There is a reference added with [[1]] to the sentence "what led to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian community was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki". I would like the user User:Fedayee give the whole paragraf from where the refernce is aquired. Also User:Fedayee has to prove that this sentence is not a secondary citation or the authors own perception. Any citation that is not based on primary sources can not be used. --OttomanReference 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of claim is this? An article based on only primary sources is called original research, you do prefer writting original research, but there is no place for that here. Fedayee contribution is nothing that special, and as you are aware of, I have already posted from the Ottoman Gazette the conclusions of the trials, and it included the role of the special organization. A role, which I have provided an ample of primary and secondary source in the talk page. I hope you won't start again. Fad (ix) 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the reference I added details how the Committee of Union and Progress came to power in Turkey. It doesn't exactly quote the sentence. Besides, isn't it common knowledge that the members of that party were the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide? Pretty lame to ask for a reference for such a sentence IMO. I'll try to find one that actually says Talaat and his clique committed the destruction of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire Mr. Lawyer. - Fedayee 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

" User:Fedayee: It doesn't exactly quote the sentence." It is not a good policy do add a quote that does not even cover the period. I want to say; I admire your efforts to improve the article. Did you not get tired of "unsupported claims." It is possible to find many opposing sources on whole section "Planned attacks on deportees by the CUP". The citation (collection in this case) has to prove "without any suspicion" of the responsibilities. A citation of “I belive so” is really not a citation. There is a difference between accusation and establishmet of a crime. Thanks. --OttomanReference 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow what you are saying but i'll remove that citation I added assuming that you want something that quotes it exactly. But is it not clear enough that the Three pashas were responsible for the AG? - Fedayee 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could any one imagine any objection if a claim was made in a Holocaust article that the Nazis (and even specifically which ones) were responsible for the Holocaust? Why should it be any different here? There is more then sufficient evidence in all the scholarly literature and from first hand accounts to establish the rol eof both the CUP (Central Commitee, Party Secretaries, other operatives throughout the organizations) and as well the Special Organization (and specifically its proinciples - Shakir and Nazim and a host of others) in planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide. Any objection to such being stated is GENOCIDE DENIAL and can be characterized as a strawman argument at best. This is denial by useless and distracting (and unsupportable) nitpicking and there is no place for such here. --THOTH 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking here about a planned ethnic and religious cleansing, with German diplomatic accounts. If we replace Armenians with Bosnians or Hutu's and Turkey or Anatolia with the Serbian controlled part of Bosnia-Hercegovina or Rwanda, nobody would even consider naming it otherwise. Ethnic/religious cleansing equals genocide. How else can the Turkish government justify killing women, children and the elderly all over Anatolia, eventhough only in the eastern provinces some Armenians ended up standing on the Russian side of the fights, but not for ethnic cleansing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.198.167 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Govermantal site for so-called genocide

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm Did anyone read it? Could we put link to this page. This is offical page. where are the other links ???? They all removed. This is the proof that Armenians are doing propaganda here!!! [user:onur_prg]

Are you serious? This is just another proof of how the Turkish gouvernement tries to deny the genocide ever happened. I didn't even have to read a whole page to see that this is just incredible Turkish propaganda, and that most parts don't make sense. You are right about placing in the article though. I think it should be placed in the part about the position of the Turkish gouvernement.High King of the Noldor 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No we cannot that site is straight from Turkeys government what the hell do you expect. Nareklm 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

yes under position of Turkish goverment lets put it...

Here is a quote from the linked article that supposedly "disproves" the Armenian Genocide - "The so-called Armenian genocide is a totally made-up, unreal and unfounded scenario of imagination based on enmity towards Turks and lacking any valid instruments, proofs or any legal basis." Yeah - no proofs, entirely made up - imagined just to get at the Turks - of course - how is it that we have all been fooled for so long? --THOTH 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of discussion moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

Is it just me or does this official turkish government site actually suggest it WAS genocide? under "5. What is genocide" it quotes one describable act of genocide through the UN General Assembly as "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,". Even fanatics don´t deny a part of the Armenian populace died during forced (i.e. deliberate) immigration. Perhaps there is just confusion over the term above all else?

Could you also take a look at to the Wikipedia's own articles before making a decision what happened during World War I, as far as Armenian-Turkish relations concerned.

Armenian battalions, French-Armenian Agreement (1916), French Armenian Legion, Armenian volunteer units, Battle of Bitlis and Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire TIASB 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple question, what has happened and Ottomans decided to issue the famous Tehcir Law "Provisional Law of Relocations" on May 1915 for her Armenian citizens after living together quite a long time in peace? Should we start studying the reason "why" among TIASB's above given links for wikipedia articles or anyone will clarify the subject for us to save time. One more link worth review Van Resistance - mind the dates! Sey01 17:44, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

The referenced artcles above are all entirely un-schoalraly and unworthy of wikipedia and entirely worthless as references here. I do agree however that a better discussion of the reasons why the Armenian genocide was undertaken by the CUP/Ottoman Empire is in order. --THOTH 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That all depends on the definition of the word genocide. Now genocide itself means " the deliberate killing of a large group of people". That is true, by the way, and it is impossible to deny that millions of Armenian Turks were killed by The Ottoman Turks, and whether the purpose to this act was based on racism or not, it is therefore undeniably true that it was an act of genocide. Again, first consider what the word genocide means to you. Odst 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So what about your source. I also think armenian source are full of imagination. Please put this govermantal page into the artical.

First, please sign all of your posts. Second, what you think of the 'Armenian' (by which I assume you mean American and German) sources and statistics is irrelevant, they are acceptable by wikipedia standards.The Myotis 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this official turkish government site actually suggest it WAS genocide? under "5. What is genocide" it quotes one describable act of genocide through the UN General Assembly as "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,". Even fanatics don´t deny a part of the Armenian populace died during forced immigration. And if the Turkish government knew of dangers faced even by its own troops at that time, such as starvation and disease, then it must have known the implications of creating a large refugee population. Perhaps there is just confusion over the term above all else?

Academic views on the issue

Why is Pamuk included in there? He is a novelist not a historian. The section should be better titled "views by some Turks" as it is and seems to be written to the only highlight Turks who have one way or the other talked about the events in a way more symphatetic to the Armenian position. I suggest that we take both Pamuk and Dink out - neither of them are historians therefore they are not "academicians"; it conflicts with the section title. It is primarily stuff like this that makes the article look bad and constantly attract edit-wars.

On a similar note, please do not rate this article higher than B for any project. We went over this two months ago. If it is not even GA it doesn't make sense that it is rated as A, now does it? It just looks childish and like a pissing contest really :) The same logic and standard applies to all the articles in Wikipedia therefore there is no need to get offended or anything - I would say the same for all of them. Baristarim 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, this whole article should be deleted for the propaganda it represents. It's like "Hmmm, how can we make an article to make Turks look like Nazis WITHOUT ANY PROOF". Sad sad world we live in where we are arguing over a 91+ year old event when the Armenian Genocide has no supporting proof. Arsenic99 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Millet system in "the Status of Ottoman Armenians" sub-article

The sentence goes like this: "Under the millet system of Ottoman law, Armenians as dhimmis or recognized non-Muslims (along with Greeks, Jews and other ethnic and religious groups) were subject to laws that effectively designated them as second-class citizens, with fewer legal rights than Muslims." It is actually a biased sentence and the biased part is the "designated them as second-class citizens, with fewer legal rights than Muslims". This claim can be disproved by reading the Wikipedia article Millet (Ottoman Empire), or attempting a little research on the Internet. As the Wiki article suggests: "The millet concept has a similarity to autonomous territories that has long been the European norm for dealing with minority groups." And it does not say anything about making other "millets" second-class citizens. In fact, "Aegean Greeks were granted wide commercial rights and also developed a fleet that quickly became the Empire's maritime weapon. In fact, some Greek citizens prospered to such a degree that they eventually opposed the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831, afraid to lose their privileged position in the imperial capital." Well, the article is not high-quality and has little information about the Armenians. But, again, if you write something, you have to have proof (correct proof) to say that it's correct. Unfortunately, the biased part of the sentence at the beginning of this sub-article does not have proof.. Kalkim 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant "correct" proof. I'm really suspicious about the reliability of the proof (namely, reference number 5), especially about the part: "their testimony in Islamic courts was inadmissible against Muslims" and "they were heavily taxed". Were they taxed more heavily than Ottoman Muslims? I doubt that. My current knowledge contradicts with these information. I will soon try to provide material that is not just based on one book on an extensive and serious subject to disprove the claim that Armenians were treated as second-class subjects. And I want to add that the reference is a book whose subject is Armenian Genocide. It's really questionable how objective this book can describe the millet system or its effects in the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th century or before.

Kalkim 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the wordings are POV. A member has made changes, I asked him to discuss them in the talkpage, which he did, and for a reason he didn't finally edited to his proposed change after, even thought I told him I agree with his change. Dig in the talk page if you could find the change he proposed. Regards. Fad (ix) 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, about the taxation, this is actually true though, Armenians were those who were taxed most. Minorities had to pay the military tax, but many other taxes were imposed to them contrary to other minorities, but many Assyrian communities in the East were subjected to the same policies though. Fad (ix) 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, I could not find the discussion of the particular member about the millet issue in this talk page or the other: Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments.. Can you be more specific about where I can find it? And the modified sentence stands as "They had separate legal courts, however disputes involving a Muslim fell under the sharia-based laws. Armenians were exempt from serving in the military (and instead forced to pay an exemption tax, the jizya); their testimony in Islamic courts was inadmissible against Muslims; they were not allowed to bear arms, they were heavily taxed, and they were treated overall as second-class subjects." It's still not in NPOV. Although this information has a reference, the reference is a book about the Armenian Genocide, whose objectivity is questionable about the Millet (Ottoman Empire) issue since it's a broad subject. Btw, I'm not sure about the taxation issue. I do not know if the Armenians were those who were taxed the most.However, you may be right and I will to try to check if this particular info is true or not from other sources. Kalkim 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. This is the proposition for change in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_15#Proposals_for_changes Read it, and tell me what you think of. Also, might I suggest you Akçam most recent work. It is pretty much complete and includes the taxation stuff. Regards. Fad (ix) 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the tanzimat essentially make the Ottoman state secular? The jizya was abolished and many social disabilities against religious minorities were removed. Also at the time of the Armenian genocide, the Young Turks were in power, who were secular humanists. I doubt Islam played a big role in the genocide. 71.102.188.162 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why speculate (falsely) when there is plently of scholarly/archival material that covers this.--THOTH 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check http://www.sephardicstudies.org/aa3.html, this page is also given as a reference in The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. This article reflects only one point of view, thus I added a POV tag. --C6H12O6 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very very sorry for my very very late response... Fad, thanks for the link. I read the change proposal. It is well written, and mostly non-biased by FrancescoMazzucotelli. Nevertheless, I have to propose a few more changes to it: current version: "Armenians were barred... they were not allowed to bear weapons." (in the first paragraph) my version: The current version sounds like it's an ethnic thing for the Armenians to be banned from the military. Instead of "Armenians", we should call it "Armenian Millet (Ottoman Empire)", i.e. "Ermeni Milleti, because their bar from the military is not an ethnic matter. Except the Muslim millet, all millets were banned from the military (also there was the devşirme). Also, there is not a single Armenian millet in the Ottoman Empire. There are more than one. Thus, my version of the first paragraph is as follows: "In principle, Armenian millets, like Greeks, Jews, and other Christian communities (millets) across the Middle East were originally subject to a corpus of laws and regulations which gave them a different legal status within the Empire than their Muslim counterparts. Armenian millets were barred from serving in the military, and paid jizya because of that. Their courts were separate from the Muslim millet. However, when there was a dispute between a Muslim and an Armenian, Islamic court was responsible to solve this dispute and their testimony was inadmissible against Muslims." I do not know about the bearing of weapons issue. In the third paragraph, there is the sentence "In 1856, the Hatt-ı Hümayun promised equality for all Ottoman citizens irrespective of their ethnicity and confession...". As I explained above, ethnicity is not an issue in the Ottoman Empire. Instead, there are millets based on the religious sect of a society. Thus, ethnicity should be removed or replaced by millet. Also in the third paragraph, there is another sentence beginning with "The reformist period peaked with the Constitution...which established freedom of belief and equality...". Freedom of belief was present in the Ottoman Empire. All people, living in the Empire, were free to believe in their own religious sects. Therefore, freedom of belief must be removed from the sentence. One last thing to do is to place till 1908 to the end of the sentence (in the fourth paragraph): "This constitution, however, was...over the Empire.". My references for my proposal for changes are especially İlber Ortaylı's two books (which are in Turkish): "The Last Empire: Ottoman Empire, İstanbul, Timaş Press, 2006", and "The Ottoman Peace, İstanbul, Timaş Press, 2007". Except for these above, the proposal is good. I did not have a chance to look at Akçam's recent work. I have nevertheless read some of his works. I strongly suggest you not to base your knowledge only on Akçam's works. You should also read İlber Ortaylı, Halil İnalcık, and Donald Quataert. They are the true masters of Ottoman History. Also, there are some incorrect data in the Wiki article Millet (Ottoman Empire). Also, the article is incomplete. I'll try to improve it ASAP. This time, it won't take too long:)). --Kalkim 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia cite subjective commentary?

“ Although the largest minority present in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians, being Christians, were in effect infidels in the eyes of Muslims, as described by British ethnographer William Ramsay:

"Turkish rule...meant unutterable contempt...The Armenians (and the Greeks) were dogs and pigs...to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet. Conceive the inevitable result of centuries of slavery, of subjection to insult and scorn, centuries in which nothing that belonged to the Armenian, neither his property, his house, his life, his person, nor his family, was sacred or safe from violence—capricious, unprovoked violence—to resist which by violence meant death."

”

I'm not bothered by the content of the article as long as it is based on something that can be considered evidence. And as far as I know, this doesn't include opinion, regardless of the occupation of the person it belongs to. I could easily find an ethnographer or a historian who believes the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't exactly make it true, now does it? JaneDOA 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not think it was being used as evidence (as in an eyewitness account) as much at is an attempt to summarize the generally held view of western society at that time period. Considering how hard it would be to find specific statistics on discrimination from that day and age, I think it is appropriate. Even today it is hard to prove that a certain group is being persecuted. However, if you believe this directly violates Wikipedia policy, it can be moved, removed or replaced.The Myotis 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue if it had at least some factual value, but it seems more like a narrative on William Ramsay's personal feelings about the conditions of the minorities - very touching, but useless in an encyclopedia article. He does have some claims, such as "The Armenians (and the Greeks) were dogs and pigs...to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet.", but however accurate they might be, the sentence is too biased to be in Wikipedia, let alone the fact that it isn't based on anything at all as far as I can tell. So it does violate both the neutrality and the reliability policies. I suggest removal. JaneDOA 06:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jane British ethnographer William Ramsay is a very notable scholar, he even has his own Encyclopedia Britanica entry. This comment is based on the fact that he travelled in turkey for twelve years (in his job as an ethnographer) seeing how the armenians and greeks were treated. But as long as we make clear its his view its is acceptable to use it here. I'm quite sure his discription of the deep south at the same time would be similar, unfortunately this is probably the best source of the level of persicution in turkey at the time. Hypnosadist 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be quoted, what does it bring to the article? A footnote is enough, quoting that much is unecessary. Fad (ix) 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Mountains

The song Holy Mountains isn't so much about the Genocide but more about the Turks building Mititary establishments on a mountain they consider to be Holy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.224.236 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

SOAD guitarist/songwriter Daron Malakian's own words: DM: "The song (Holy Mountains) is about Masis (the Armenian homeland) and Ararat (a mountain in eastern Turkey considered to be the landing point of Noah’s Ark). If you saw the mountains on TV they would be described as mountains in Turkey, and that’s always a knife in an Armenian’s heart because those are Armenian mountains, not Turkish mountains. They were stolen from us. So that song, ‘Holy Mountains,’ is about those mountains and how they were stolen from us. [Also], my little cousin’s name is Masis" If you listen to the lyrics you will understand it is about how sacred Armenian lands were taken from them through bloodshed - so yes of course it is about the Genocide which was the final act in the historical process of the Turks depriving Armenians of their lands (in addition to slaughtering the better part of the Anatolian Armenian population). --THOTH 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Politician Dogu Perincek found guilty in Switzerland of racial discrimination for denying Armenian Genocide

This needs to be referenced in the article. http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/top_news/detail/Turkish_politician_fined_over_genocide_denial.html?siteSect=106&sid=7603245&cKey=1173463623000 --THOTH 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From the page you gave :"The Armenians say Ottoman Turks slaughtered up to 1.8 million Armenians in a planned genocide between 1915 and 1918. Turkey denies the mass killings were genocide, saying the death toll is inflated.".. it is made-up. This shows how swiss people hates Turks.

Wow check this :"Judge Pierre-Henri Winzap accused Perinçek of being "a racist" and "an arrogant provocateur" who was familiar with Swiss law on historical revisionism.".. Why racist?. We love Armenians. We have many Armenians living in Turkey.. We are just talking about history.. Why he became racist? User:onur_prg

People all are BLIND Who beleive Armeian Genocide. Armenian goverment do not accept an Historical researh that we offered.. Why ? why are you afraid? The facts? It is only true that Most of Armenian villages were forced to move out from Turkey. It was 1st world war, there Turkish villages burned and our people killed. Lie? search the real history. oo I forgot u afraid of:)...Today it looks like that it is not fair to move most of people out of country...But it is not a genocide. Poor Jewish people Genocie Germany..YES, Butcher Stalin Genocide Turks and many people YES, American Genocide Indians YES, French and Italian Genocice in North African countries YES....They killed people as animals...even these poor people were not neighbours , at least thousands of kilometers far away... so ? how can you say Turks genocide Armenians? How can you put us in same stage as German and Amerian butchers? No there must be another matter about this thing...FOR ALL ANSWERS YOUR GOVERMENT MUST EXCEPT THE COMOMMON RESEACH İN OTTOMAN HISTORY TOGETHER... Bu you afraid...Why? Because you know the answer..Anything else is comedy...But this vitrual war has just started...you started ...we will keep it going.... Do not forget we are 100.000 millon only in Turkey....:) mush much much more than you ....

First genocide of 20th century

In the second paragraph, we have the following (part of a) sentence:

" ... believe that it was indeed the first genocide of the 20th century ... "

I want to edit it, and change to "... believe that it was indeed a genocide ..." , unless the sources support it, or unless that sentence is a result of consensus. --deniz 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Encyclopædia Britannica:

The first significant genocide of the 20th century was directed against the Armenian residents of Asia Minor by the Turkish government. This deliberate slaughter began on April 24, 1915, under the cover of World War I. April 24 is still commemorated by Armenians around the world as Martyrs' Day. The numbers killed are uncertain. The lowest estimate is 800,000 and the highest more than… (from "Major Modern Genocides")

and:

The greatest single disaster in the history of the Armenians came with the outbreak of World War I (1914–18). In 1915 the Young Turk government resolved to deport the whole Armenian population of about 1,750,000 to Syria and Mesopotamia. It regarded the Turkish Armenians—despite pledges of loyalty by many—as a dangerous foreign element bent on conspiring with the pro-Christian tsarist enemy to upset the Ottoman campaign in the east. In what would later be known as the first genocide of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven from their homes, massacred, or marched until they died. The death toll of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey has been estimated at between 600,000 and 1,500,000 in the years from 1915 to 1923. (See Researcher's Note: Armenian massacres.) Tens of thousands emigrated to Russia, Lebanon, Syria, France, and the United States, and the western part of the historical homeland of the Armenian people was emptied of Armenians. (from "Armenia")

So, I suppose we could add this as a source to the article. Khoikhoi 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not fair to say that, the first genocide of the 20th century was the one of the Herrero's. The Armenian genocide is the first modern case, not the first 20th century. It is unfair for the herreros, as it implies their's isen't one. Fad (ix) 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very curious to know how Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide feel about that of the Herreros. I mean everyone pretty much agrees that the Herreros started a revolt against German occupation in 1904 and that they killed quite a few Germans. Only after this "provocation" did the Germans drive the Herreros en mass off of their lands and eventually round them up into concentration camps...so 60,000 died...most likely disease and starvation played a factor eh? So was it genocide? Can an order be found from the Kaiser telling his troops - "kill them all!" - somehow I don't think so...yet...well...where are they now? While these events certainly occured in the 20th century and (IMO) are acuratly depicted as the first genocide of the 20th century - in fact I see these vents as a continuation of 19th century colonial efforts at using extreme brutality to supress local insurections. The Germans just happened to do a good job of it - to the extreme detriment of the Herrero. What distinguishes this event from the of the Armenians is that the Armenians who were subject to genocide were actually citizens of the nation who perpetrated the killings. Additionally, though I don't discount the losses or wish to play numbers games - the Armenians lost over 1 million and their ancient civilizaton was devestated - and their losses basically eliminated them as a people from their ancestral lands. I'm not sure what percentage loss the Herrero experienced but I think that some portion of theri population remained and remains living in Nambibia afterward and to this day. Thus, in the terminology of Dr Robert Melson - the Armenians suffered the first total domestic genocide of the 20th century. So in this regard (as well as in regards to the nature of the genocie - colonial - as in 19th century - veruses nationalistic (political) - 20th century) - and the characterization of the genocide as "total" (along with only the Jewish Holocaust in modern history) - one can acuratly claim the Armenian Genocide to be the first true genocide of the 20th century. (though this is admittedly a semantics issue) --THOTH 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You never change. All this is irrelevent. Fad (ix) 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you your highness.--THOTH 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Fad (ix) 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian archives..

Check this book : 100 Belgede Ermeni Meselesi [2] The book is new and it gives 100 offical documents which belongs to Russian archives and which proves it was not a genocide. So it means not only ottoman archive but also other countries' archives are supporting us ... I feel sorry for you :) . So you will not again tell me the stories that we changed the ottoman archive, Right?.. Also please don't tell me also that we changed Russian arhive... Also we have documents from Armenian archives.. I will add here later.. --Onur 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny that a book which (supposedly) 'disproves' AG just happens to be written in Turkish. I think that these newly discovered documents would be more believable if they were written in Russian and maybe actually came from Russia. And you don’t expect us to just take your world that it 'disproves’ AG, you haven’t even given us a hint as to what 'evidence' it contains. Oh, and in case you have not heard, documenting a resistance movement does not disprove any western conclusions on the matter.The Myotis 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Funny? Book has copy of each document in it, if know Russion language, you can read it. Documents shows how Armenians killed Turks. How they got armed and helped to Russia and bra bra... I hope they will translate it.. But even they translate it, Will you read it? So why you are asking me this?.. There are many perfect books in english and no body read it. They say it is propaganda. So why you are asking me about the language of the book.. Will you read it.. If you will read it, I can translate for you :).. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.156.165.158 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, we already know that Armenians within the Czar's territory were drafted into the Russian army, and, the two countries being at war, obviously fought killed Ottoman soldiers (which also included Armenians early in the war), and that would definitely explain it's place in the Russian archives. As the Ottoman's policy of extermination became obvious (1915 onwards), one would expect that any fleeing Armenians who came across Russian troops would certainly help them, so any records from that time period can not be used as "disproof". Basically it is telling us something we already know and know to be irrelevant. And I don't think I would trust the translation of an anonymous editor who will not even sign its own posts with its name.The Myotis 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so. because author was very assertive. By the way it is nothing about killed Ottoman soldiers. I am talking about killed civilians. Let me remind you the events: When Russia invaded the Kars, Armenians attacked to Turks (we can say they deleted the Kars ). Then in Mus, Turks heard that Armenians killing their people, and they paniced and attacked to Armenians. In Mus Armenians ascaped to Kars to Russian part. Then Russia attacked to Mus and again mass killing to civilians happened there. Armenians got their revenge there. Ottoman saw that these two race is figthing each other. And in many place ottoman decided to relocation (This protected Armanians' life in many place).. in my prediction, The documents are about that. I haven't read the book but watched the writer at TV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs).

I have heard almost claims many before, but have yet to see any irrefutable verification that they happened. Are you telling me this book contains ‘newly discovered’ evidence, or is it just the rehashing of an old story in order to give it more credibility? And I hope that you do not seriously expect me to believe that the deportations were for their own protection. Ottoman soldiers fed the same line to the Armenian civilians they robbed, starved, and marched into the desert.The Myotis 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just I want to ask you question? Why turkish historians and Armenians historians don't argue this face to face in a TV show. In America, they would do it but Armenian side refused it. Anyway this is endless argue.. This is govermantal thing :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

You sound like you don't know it has happened before. The pro-Turkish and pro-Armenian sides have done public television debates on the issue before. PBS had a televised debate between the two sides, the recognition side being represented by Taner Akcam and Peter Balakian, the denial side by Justin McCarthy and Omer Turan. The major consensus of the viewing audience was that the recognition side won. [3] Does that answer your question? - The Myotis 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should they discuss it on a tv show, instead of in scientific journals, magazines and other publications? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about this: MSNBC Aecis, the link is for live vote and It is asking same question. And see 85 % says yes :).. Myotis, I will check your links.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Or perhaps they should hold a wresling match...best 2 out of 3...--THOTH 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, But don't forget we are very good in wrestling, we will beat you definitly :).. Face to face discussions and TV panels, People want these.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.49.181 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink

Hi, these two are not academics, one is a novelist, the other a journalist. Imo they should only be given a passing mention perhaps in reference to article 301, not sections of their own. --A.Garnet 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The first reaction of a Turkish National to the genocide topic is a reaction of instinctive defense. That is the way I felt. I would like to explain how I feel now. Hrant Dink was well respected in Turkey, and I respected his unifying ideology. I hope that the Diaspora does not think that all Turks are anti-Hrant or anti-Armenian. He wrote once that the only way an Armenian could cure him/her self from the hatred against Turks is to come and live side by side with Turks. He considered the hatred a "poison" in the blood and that the diaspora thought this to originate from "poisonous Turkish blood". For that phrase he was found guilt by a Turkish court. Not all citizens of Turkey agree with that decision.

Now, my most recent reaction to this topic is this: if I were an Armenian; I would try to suffer less by erasing from my heart the hatred against Turks. This is what the Crimean Tatars should do and the Jews of Germany as well. And most recently the Bosnians of Srebrenica. A heredited culture of vengance and hatred only consumes its keeper. It is like a fire that burns you from within. So I wish very much to all the Armenians who so much deal with the past to look at today, and the future. I wish one day that the border between the two very similar nations is only symbolic. And I wish that emperial wars will not further divide the two neighbors. Thank you. --Devran77 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I think I discovered an enlightened Turk, could this be? Amjikian 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcastic remarks (especially the ones bundled with (any amount of) rascism). By the way, is your last name really Amjikian? just wondering deniz 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information - my "suffering" as an Armenian has nothign to do with hatred against Turks - I don't hate Turks - I don't hate anyone. My "suffering" as an Armenian has everythign to do with a genocide of my people and my family that is ongoing to this day - as denial is the final stage of genocide - and it is a stage that we are in right now. Now if I was a Turk I would be quite ashamed of my country for continuing this genocide, of causing the current generation of Turks to become accomplice to it...and perhaps I would try to do something - to try to suffer less by erasing this shame from my heart - and fully acknowledge the crimes commited against the Armenians by the anscestors that you protect. Likewise I would say (again in your words - as a Turk) that to erase the ignorance of the past and amnesia of your brain that in fact you try to do a better job remembering and acknowledging the past - and attempting to understand why a people who have been victimized by your ancestors - to the point where they were delibertly slaughtered en mass and driven from their ancient homelands - why such a people might currently be suffering and feel hurt - when you - the perpetrator nation - fail to acknowledge the enormity of the crimes commited against this victim people - and instead smugly advise them to forget about it - yeah just forget about of course - as if we can...unfortunatly (?) we haven't been brainwashed as a people to forget about our past - unlike soem other people who revel in their ignorance and suggest such for others - how convenient....--THOTH 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not advise anyone to forget the past. And I do not understand the degree of aggression that you display, nor the sharpness of your words. I do not feel that I am a perpetrator, and neither do I feel brainwashed. I am only proposing solutions to better the lives of the Armenians in Turkey and the Armenians of Armenina today. I feel that Hrant Dink was a very humanist and wise writer and his thoughts and philosophy should be better studied by all Armenians and Turks. I would feel better if you made some remarks about him or his thoughts on your commentary because this is the topic underwhich we are writing. He always stated that trying to corner the Turkish State via international lobbies only worsens the relations here in Asia Minor. It creates further prejudice in the public opinion, and the populist media does not help the situation either. I will not enter the attriton warfare that you may want me enter. All I do is to come out of the trench, bare naked, in order to suggest solutions for the current situation. If you really want to do good for Armenians, go to Armenia, help dress, feed and educate Armenian kids, and better the economy of that country. Instead of rolling your eyes with resentment, focus them on productive projects with practical outcomes. That is better for us and everyone. I suggest a new topic that is "The social and psychological impacts (trauma?) on today's diaspora". Thank you.--Devran77 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Turks admitting the truth about what Turkish nation did to Armenians is the first step in any reconcilliation. Can you imagine a German preaching to a Jew how he/she should feel about Germans and about the Holocaust? - and oh by the way - stop hating Germans (when most all Germans in this case dismiss the Holocaust as some kind of Jewish propoganda, still blame the Jews for their own misfortune and claim innocence and consider Hitler and his minions as national heros who were only doing their patritic duty to the nation...and so on and so forth). And BTW the topic of this article is not "solutions to better the lives of the Armenians in Turkey and the Armenians in Armenia" it is the Armenian Genocide - so your concern in this regard is out of place here (in addition to otherwise being misguided and misinformed). As for Hrant Dink - yes he was of the opinion that outside efforts to pressure Turkey were not helpful. However, he clearly believed that Turkey and Turks must admit the Armenian Genocide as fact. He felt that the onus was on Turks to come to this realization and express remourse etc without having to be prod to do so. I and other Armenians are all for that - however the reality is that Turkey had 50-60 years after the event where there was little or no pressure from any Armenian Diaspora to admit the truth and I can't seem to recall any statements made on behalf of the nation or educational programs for Turks or what have you that became more accurate and forthcomming concerning these events. In fact it has been just the opposite. What is clear is that pressure is building on Turkey - through efforts of the Armenian Diaspora - for Turkey and Turks to come to terms with their past. Obviously it is already proven that lacking such pressure they will not come around on their own. So in this case Dink was clearly wrong - as much as we can appreciate his sentiments of brotherhood among the Turkish and Armenian peoples. And while some Armenians may hate Turks I think is is innacurate to claim that most do and that "hatred" is putting Turks on the defensive and such. It is also incredibly innacurate to brand Genocide recognition efforts as hatred of Turks or toward Turkey (while the continued denial of the Genocide can clearly be considered a hateful act toward Armenians). The Turkish policies of denial are what is putting Turks and Turkey on the defensive. And until this attitude changes this condition will not change. Turkey and Turks will continue to be - rightly - condemned by the entire world who knows of and understands these events and the travesty of their continued denial. The ball is clearly in Turkey and Turks' court to do what is right, show some maturity as a people, and stop the shameful and hurtful denial of the Armenian Genocide and stop the perpetuation of the genocide by the continued aggressive acts of denial which only makes the Turks of today accomplices to the crimes. So for justice to be served is it incumbent upon the victim of a crime to show mercy on the perpetrator? Or is the onus upon the perpetrator to acknowledge the deeds and seek forgivness?--THOTH 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to address the point i made above? --A.Garnet 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. If Hrant Dink gets a section, then why not a sentence or two on ASALA's murder of nearly 50 Turkish diplomats and their families in the name of genocide recognition? Lima6 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion on this matter --THOTH 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a reason. --A.Garnet 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pamuk recieved the nobel prize for literature - arguably directly in relation to his stance on the Armenian genocide (or at least in regard to freedom of speech - or lack therof - in Turkey in regards to this and related issues). Dink was recently killed by Turkish nationalistic forces directly for his stance regarding Armenian Genocide recognition. He obviously was considered to be a notable voice on this issue and his death is both highly pressworthy and relevant to this issue - (killing because of his outspokeness on this issue...reference above comments by Devran77). Both of these individuals merit the level of treatment they recieve in the article. I find it quite interesting and telling that certain Turks such as yourself might disagree....but the genocide is a mde up propoganda ploy on behalf of Armenians right? yes - let us make it clear where we stand.--THOTH 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insults and accusations aside, neither of them are academics. They are relevant in that they have been associated with the media coverage of the events, but they have not provided any notable academic view on the event as section suggests. They should be contextualised into a more approriate section. Perhaps create a "Recent developments" section. --A.Garnet 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, please remember to comment on the content of a point raised here, not on the contributor who raised the point. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Garnet, i'm surprised that you raise this issue considering that this article is highly biased and chock full of hypocrisy. One can argue that it rivals material produced by the Soviets. lutherian 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the Calvinist's comment, I would like you to take a look at the term academic. An academic is simply a person, typically part of the higher-education community, who has done peer-reviewed research on a topic. A Nobel-prize winner would certainly fit the former category, and debatably the latter. Similar things can probably be said about Dink, he was certainly a well-educated and distinguished person, though I am not certain how much research he was involved in. However, both views on the subject are noteworthy, and I think they deserve inclusion, even if it may be necessary to label them as ‘other notable views’ or move them to a different section.The Myotis 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many journalists that are good researchers, but they are not academics. Myotis, please take a look at academic yourself. An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education Not being an academic does not make Hrant Dink's opinion not notable, as he might have researched the subject very well. The bad thing about journalists is that they are not as academically responsible of what they write as academics, historians. Orhan Pamuk is notable as he is a Nobel prize winner, his quotes are notable too, but his quotes, his opinions should not be presented as facts or as something from the research community (which includes academics, researcher journalists and other researchers). Besides, what Orhan Pamuk said was that 30,000 Kurds and 1million Armenians were killed in these lands. Separately these are not far from the general Turkish view, according to which 37,000+ people died in PKK conflict and many of them were Kurdish, also hundreds of thousands of Armenian died but not as much as 1 million (died-killed might be an issue there). deniz 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to rename the 9th section, it should be 'the position of Turkish people', create a subsection government's position move what was previously under 9th section there. Move Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk subsections under the governments position subsection. Move the first sentence of subsection "10.4 Denial" under section 9 above subsection for government's position. Make 10.4 Denial to a section (might be better to rename it to 'support to the Turkish view in the academic continuity') (delete the now empty 10th section) deniz 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Position of Turkish people" sounds awkward and too generalizing. How do you quantify the "Turkish people"? Do all Turks believe that the genocide did not occur? Of course not; you cannot lump an entire people into a group and claim that the whole of them represent this particular point of view.--MarshallBagramyan 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check my changes, there is no such claim that all Turkish all represent same point of view on this issue deniz 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, it is better that you do not add quotes, we have way too much already, and I will be deleting probably most when I start cleaning the article. Also, it is better you leave Garnet handle the article, as the talk page has megs of discussions and you were not there when this happened, for example your recent edit deal with that, which was contested in the page. Fad (ix) 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is quote = that excerpt of letter?. We can hide it. Did you guys have a discussion about bringing together all Turkish views under one section? I understand your concern, seeing the same discussions over and over again might be pissing off the old editors, sorry if I did that, that was one of my reasons of refraining from adding/removing anything substantial here and similar articles. I know rearranging stuff can also be a very major edit. My edit was a response to A. Garnet's concerns and the comments after that. I think it solves that problem, though it might be creating other problems. deniz 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically yes, that is one example. Because there is more to that letter, there is Israel Charny questioneers, and the followup. This will lead to placing quotes and counterquotes. Also, the allusion to Turkish position to. This brough many conreoversies in the past, as it would be qualified as generalisation. Fad (ix) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make these changes, please feel free to revert any change I made. oops section 10 wasn't empty, it stays though I made rearrangements, moved some text in this section to other sections. I recovered a text that was commented out and moved it to 10th section. Hopefully my suggestions are more clear now deniz 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The title sounds too generalizing - again the impression it makes on me and surely will on readers is that this is the view on the entire Turkish people, not the Turkish people. I'll let some of the editors to weigh in their in opinion on it. --MarshallBagramyan 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think now I get what you mean. Will it be OK if the title is positions(plural) of Turkish people? The text under that includes several views.deniz 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Garnet, when I had created the section on Turkish intellectuals, it was not meant to be to divide them and expend on each ones. If we start doing that with each persons position, we could load the article without end, so I basically agree with you. This articles quality has not improved, to the contrary, it is in a pittiful state and is becoming worst as days pass. Probably after the arbitration case on Armenia and Azerbaijan, I will take the moment to work on it, and you are more than welcome, don't bother Thoth, nothing constructive could come from him. You could start working on the Turkish government position, which needs work, actually, there is nothing much which could not be worked on, so pick whatever you want. And don't bother asking my opinion for now(I have no time right now), with the state of the article, you could not make it worst, of course that is, if Thoth or OttomanReference don't screw it. Fad (ix) 00:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix - I would like to helpfully suggest to you (to do us all a favor) that if you can't control your mental condition (of having to irrationally lash out against, belittle and personally attack any who do not blindly accept your very specific perspective) that you do your best to just try to stay away from and out of the business of other people.--THOTH 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No I won't, you on various occasions admitted that you won't respect NPOV, which is a policy. Don't expect me to get out of your way. Pretty much everyone are tired of your irrelevent comments which have nothing to do with the content of this article. Fad (ix) 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Toth unfortunately suffers from an acute form of VD (see arguments page) Amjikian 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the recent restructure is an improvment. "Views of Turkish people" is too general as Marshall has noted. Imo, one section should note the Turkish government position since it is the official response, another deal with Academic views consisting of those who support and deny including Turkish scholars on both sides and new section should be created for 'Recent Developments' where the controversies surrounding Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink's death can be included. --A.Garnet 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As the overwhelming position (academic and otherwise) on this matter is acknolwledgement of the Armenian Genocide (as indisputable fact) and acceptance of its basic understood chronology and facts (including perpetrators, methods and motivations for such etc. as well as sources of evidence for this knowledge) - I suggest that your and other attempts here to push the (not widely held/believed) Turkish denialist position are disproportionate to the deserved level of treatment of this position in the article and consist of pushing an unsupported minority position that is not held by the majority of scholars. At best the article should mention that Turkey, Turks and certain academics with various connections and/or dependence on Turkey hold a counter postion and briefly why. However, the article should not just present [mention the existance of] the denialist views but more importantly [of more true academic interest] the article should present the views of the majority of genocide scholars and hsitorians/academics concerning why the Armenian Genocide is denied by such entities and it should also mention the existance of a Turkish Government funded and very active campaign to push denial...including evidence such as the presence of overwhelmingly Turkish deniers on this talk page and in related internet forums and venues concerning the Armenian Genocide and such). This is the appropriate way to present valid information pertaining ot this subject and this should satisfy the deserved level of detail (regarding the denial of the truth/facts in regard to this issue). The bulk of the article should deal with the known facts of the Armenian Genocide itself - as would be expected in a proper encyclopedic article and not a mouthpeice for Turkish denialist propoganda.--THOTH 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Garnet has been here long enough to understand how Wikipedia works, but some will never understand how things works here. Fad (ix) 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you the Thoth mentioned above? oops deniz^T_C 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The one and only, attached to this talkpage with an umbilical cord. Fad (ix) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Thoth something related to Armenians? There are at least two users with that username. According to wikipedia, it is an Egyptian deity, you might need to edit that article. deniz^T_C 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Garnet. Someone said above that since Pamuk won a Nobel, he was an academic and thus could be presented as such in this article. That's wrong. He is an academic, but not on history. A chemist is not an academician if a mathemetical proposition is concerned. Neither is Dink for that matter, he was a journalist and was more preoccupied with the modern-day repurcussions, not the subject itself. For someone to be presented as an academician in this article, he must be a historian. Even Einstein cannot be presented as an academic since his "academic credentials" didn't extend to history. That's all. They can get a mention in relation with 301 in a recent developments section or something of the like and it would be much more relevant in fact. I really fail to see what Dink or Pamuk said clarifies on the historical analysis of the events themselves, really. Baristarim 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

-- no name Barış, please see academic. Man, this is the n^th time, I get an edit conflict error with small messages, all with you. deniz^T_C 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to sign :) Baristarim 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

sources

Should we make a section about the sources, and keep it unarchived, so that editors can have a quick look at that section and be aware of the previous discussions about these sources? We can have something like this:

Book or website || summary (good source or bad source since it does not satisfy [these wiki rules], Example: 1) ..., 2) ... (maybe a third one as well, only the main points)

They will be good until proven to be bad. What do you think about this suggestion? I hope it won't cause another wave of hot discussions (which this talk page is apparently prone to), please if we are going to do it, lets just be precise and concise. Such a section would have helped me a lot. deniz^T_C 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By book, I guess you are talking about ressources, I think only books which were consulted to write the actual article should be placed on the main. But I have already in the past created a page, with the ressources. Fad (ix) 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is that page? deniz^T_C 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone redirected it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_resources a bad move. Fad (ix) 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to undo the redirect and then move the page to AG/resources (subpage), and create a link on the archive box, above the link to your analysis. Should I go for it? deniz^T_C 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to creat subpages, but undoing is definitly a good move, I don't know what happened of the content if it was deleted, you might ask to an administrator so that he/she undo-delete it. I am just trying to make the last arrangements before they ban me. Fad (ix) 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, it was redirected because supposedly it did not deserve its own page. So I think, a subpage would be fine in that case. Now, after moving the old article page will be redirected to this subpage, so anyone typing that will get to the subpage. Take care. deniz^T_C 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A subpage will have no role other than being a subpage of a talkpage, everyone will ignore it, the main was ignored and then redirected, a subpage will make of its content as if innexistant. Any information worth being accessed should have a main. Fad (ix) 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To 88.106.61.112

I do not agree with adding that link, while it is true it is the governments official position, it is in Turkish, only Turks will understand it. There was in the past English language sites, what happened with the prior sites? Who removed all the sites there? Fad (ix) 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is a wrong usage as editors of this page all do propaganda on here! they wrote about everything bad about Turkey... but i can not see anything about ASALA in the front page! so this page does not reflect the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.18.238 (talk • contribs)

Abdullah Gül's statement

Denizz (talk · contribs) added the following sentence to the lead of the article.

Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül stated that "... but when you call it "genocide," you have to find another terminology for the Jews that were killed in Germany before and during World War II.

I removed this, with the edit summary "Revert, Gul's remark isn't notable enough for the intro. It may be added to the section on the position of Turkey". As outlined in Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead of the article "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I believe that the remark by Gül is too specific and not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Again per Wikipedia:Lead section: "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article. A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead." I believe that the relative weight of this statement is not enough for the intro, and it wasn't even "mentioned after the lead."
Makalp (talk · contribs) reverted me, with the edit summary "notable as -atleast- like others." I then moved the sentence from the lead of the article to the section Armenian Genocide#The position of the Turkish government, with the edit summary "Abdullah Gül statement moved to "The position of the Turkish government"; too specific for the lead. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points..." "
Denizz then left a message on my user talk page, saying: "I think that quote should stay with the previous sentence clause for NPOV issues. The current place is fine, if that sentence clause is removed. (comparison to Holocaust )" In other words, the statement by Gül was added in response to the previous sentence of the lead section, "The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust." Denizz indicates in the last sentence of his message that he can live with Gül's statement being in the section Armenian Genocide#The position of the Turkish government if the statement that the Armenian Genocide "often draws comparison with the Holocaust" is removed from the lead section.
I would like to request the input of other editors on this matter. Should the phrase about the Holocaust comparison be followed by Gül's response to this? Should the phrase about the Holocaust comparison be removed from the lead? Denizz and I would like to ask each and all responding to this to be as concise as possible, for the sake of intelligibility. I will remove the statement from the article for now. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding something to the effect that the Turkish government reject any comparaison with the Holocaust could be relevent, I think Gul is a little to much specific in the intro. Fad (ix) 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I have to admit I have no idea what Gul is trying to say - its a bit too obtuse for me (besides we have been over this many times already - Armenian Genocide meets all criteria for being a genocide - as is overwhelmingly supported by scholars and in fact is part of the definition of the word - ie Armenian Genocide was used to describe what was meant by the term by Lemkin - the develper of it). Secondly I rather doubt that we would include a quote by Goering denying the Holoucast to the beginning of that article so Gul certainly doesn't belong here. Third - this isn't missiles in Cuba for missiles Turkey - I don't understand how we can bargain over inclusion of a very relevant and factual statement that "the Armenian Genocide often draws comparison to the Holocaust" with some random gobdlygook statement of opinion made by some irrelevant Turkish government official.--THOTH 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gül is trying to say that if the Armenian Genocide is a genocide, the other genocides need to be renamed, because the Armenian Genocide cannot be compared to those. Or something to that extent. Like Fadix, I think that Gül's statement might be a little too specific for the intro, although Turkey's rejection of the comparison might be appropriate. But Abdüllah Gül, the Turkish Foreign Minister, deputy prime minister and former prime minister, is not "some irrelevant Turkish government official." Aecis^Brievenbus 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the fact that Turkey rejects charges of genocide and comparisons with the Holocaust already promionatly featured in the article - I sure think it is. I think the Turkish rejection is more then sufficiently dealt with in the article - certainly more then it desrrves to be considering the facts and considering what most scholars believe to be the truth. I honestly feel that through intentions to apear "balanced" and to present all sides etc - we are in fact in danger of misrepresenting the denial of this genocide and assisting in advocating the denial itself by giving the apearence of legitimacy to these non historically accurate non-scholarly views and I fear we will be establishing a precident for the presentation of other genocides in Wikipedia. We would be doing a better service I think to do a better job presenting Armenian Genocide denial for what it is. --THOTH 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What if there was a little something to the notion that calling this a genocide is dishonest and ignores all the violence undertaken by Armenians against Turks? Huh. Novel idea. Don't look too hard, guys, you might find the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Turkish rejection of the concept of genocide and of the Holocaust comparison is featured prominently in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead, since the lead "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." If the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide is relevant (it is) and is featured prominently (it is), it should be mentioned in the lead. A notable denial of a seemingly undeniable truth is still a notable denial, and should therefore be mentioned. Notability matters, not factual correctness. Verifiability, not truth. Mentioning a notable position does not mean endorsement of that position. Wikipedia shouldn't ignore a notable position for the reason that it's factually incorrect, because that is not a criterion for inclusion. We do not "assist in advocating the denial", and we do not "give the apearence of legitimacy" to the denial, by mentioning that some people and at least one country hold these views. I can understand that it may be tempting to inject a personal opinion or a sidenote in response to denial of the genocide, but that would be both original research and pov. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aecis I understand (and agree with) your position here - that if "notable" it should be mentioned and as much as possible introduced. But it is my contention that the Turkish objections are both mentioned and featured if anything with more emphasis then requirred to meet the letter of this intent and that we are infact moving toward over emphasis if we are not already there.--THOTH 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to adress this supposed point that Gul (and others who deny that the term "genocide" is appropriate) are trying to make here (and the absurdity of such a contention. And for this genocide researcher Hilmar Kaiser has stated it best: "The Armenian genocide is the Ottoman government's answer to the Armenian Question...I use the word `genocide' because it adequately describes the phenomenon. It's the only term we have that describes it. If one day we have a better word, fine. The English, German, and Turkish languages have only one word to describe. That this has a negative consequence on the Turkish government is something I can't change; I can't change history. I'm not prepared to haggle over it. If a Turkish scholar says it too politicized and he or she doesn't want to use the word, then let him/her take a different subject. If you want to be part of this debate, apply proper terminology and if you don't want to do it, you aren't a scholar." Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, in interview with Khatchig Mouradian (24 September 2005) published in Aztag Daily Newspaper--THOTH 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First I removed the comparison to Holocaust because we discussing it as well. I want to keep this as short as possible. I will first need to reply this. I don't know how much a German expert of Armenian genocide Hilmar Kaiser is, but claims like 'you aren't a scholar if you do not accept the term genocide' are not very scholarly, are in fact very anti-scholarly. Having the same opinion with a scholar does not make that opinion much better, it might make it notable. Considering the 69 academics, I am not sure about that most Western historians agree on the term, even if one of them says so, as that would be his/her opinion, apparently not a well researched thing. I don't have the book now, I will comment on it later, if I don't forget. One thing is we had to change the referenced material, which I don't like, as it makes me think that that reference is not reliable. I agree with Aecis with most of everything else.

Apparently we have at least two definitions of genocide, first a legal one, by which this will never be a genocide, second a political one, what the parliaments of some countries accept for instance (I am not sure of a scientific one yet). Taking into account what is called and what is not called a genocide (like Congo, native Americans, several aborigine communities, Algeria, etc), I think it is the latter one. This has many implications, one is that a statement of leading politician that is in a position to state a country's opinion is worth a mention. Besides, please check the bibliography section. I have worries about that section as well. For instance, is the Armenian research center the only notable research center, it is way too overrepresented. deniz^T_C

"first a legal one, by which this will never be a genocide"...perhaphs we need to remind you of the technical definition of genocide. Acording to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide a genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Would you mind pointing out which part, exactly, exempts Armenians from this definition? The Myotis 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as definitions for "genocide" are concerned I think that there are perhaps two or probably three that might need to be considered. The first, of course, is that of the person who came up with the word in the first place - R Lemkin (which might be referred to as the narrow version), the second would be the verion of the concept as accepted and laid out by the United Nations (the inclusive version - as it seems to cast quite a wide net concerning what might be considered as "genocide") and the third that I recommend is that of scholar Robert Melson as he defines degrees of genocide to include particl and total based upo impact on victim population. As the Armenian Genocide clearly meets all of these criteria - and has consistently been proven by all manner of research and analysis and review (including recent [2003] TARC [Armenian - Turk] sponsored ICTJ review) to do so I would really hope that deniers like you would be a bit less cavalier and give it up already. Likewise referring to the 69 scholars who signed onto this advertisement taken out by a Turkish Government sponsored denial organization - Genocide scholar Israel Charney has conducted a rather extensive analysis of these individuls and concluded that the vast majority obtained direct Turkish Government funding for their researches, and unlike the 126 Holocaust scholars who signed a petition for recognition of the Armenian Genocide - very few of the academics the Turks came up with could be shown to have anything but a casual (not a scholarly) knowledge of this subject or period of history. There was also some debate as to the actual positions of many of these 69 academics, some who claimed that their name on the list did not in fact represent their views. So again, like much of the Turkish denial, once the fog of it all is cleared away we can see it for what it is - an attempt to divert attention from the real facts. Likewise, one can find very few actual scholarly (peer reviewed and such) works that support the denialist position. Academia has clearly come down on the side of recognition and has done so with overwhelming historical support. The denail is proven to be pure politics and misrepresentation.--THOTH 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that it will be sometimes accepted by a universal court as a genocide? At least now it isn't, and I don't think it will ever be. deniz^T_C 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't believe that any court is "universal", second, I don’t think this particular case has ever been tried, and third, you are ducking the question. What exactly exempts AG from the stated definition is what I would like to know and why you are so certain it will never be accepted? The Myotis 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think Deniz meant this:

The Armenian "genocide" can only sold by propaganda (like this wiki-article Armenian Genocide, see above under External links). There are no other ways. No one international court will recognize the Armenian "genocide" (1915 was before 1948 when the Genocide Convention was approved in the UN). The Armenian propaganda can only have support from christian parliaments and scientists with unscientific and hidden agenda's like Akcam&Co.Chonanh 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Myotis, I missed what you wrote. I agree with one sentence of Chonanh above, it won't be accepted as a genocide by any international court, if for nothing else, b/c the events happened decades before the law passed. Also, the people were punished. One of them was even killed by an Armenian and the guy got away it in a court where those fake (?) telegraphs were used. Turkey, which overtoppled Ottomans, did not gain anything by it (no Swiss golds etc, not the territory either, unless you claim that Armenians would have sided with Russians), eastern borders with Russia are partly a result of the Russian revolution. Eastern boarders with Iran were already fixed centuries ago. deniz^T_C 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that no person or nation can be convicted of genocide, being that the responsible entities are long dead. I suppose we could get a court to rule that the event was genocide, and I don’t know what Iran and Russia's borders have to do with this, we are talking about a definition, not reconciliation. However, I don't think that any court has ruled an event's definition without prosecution, and if they would bother. All I was saying was that it matches the legal definition, and that should be enough for anybody. The Myotis 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Yapp

Note 61, about Malcolm Yapp as one of the Western scholars denying or doubting that the events constituted a genocide, currently reads: "Emeritus Professor Malcom Yapp, Middle Eastern Studies (MES) journal Oct 96, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p 395, 3p." This seems to refer to an article in the Middle Eastern Studies Journal. Does anyone have access to that article? If so, could you add the title of the article to the reference in accordance with Template:Cite journal? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 12:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Makalps disruptive tags

Stop adding tags and blindly reverting back without even discussing. You better write a 10 page essay if you intend to back up the addition of those tags. Discuss your grievances on the talk page!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

Please do not engage in edit wars and back-and-forth reverting. If it is clear that your edit is being opposed (and it should be clear after about two dozen reverts just today), use this talk page to discuss possible changes to the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the claim (by one now gone - pity) that my participation in this talk page is preventing editing of the article is a spurious one eh?--THOTH 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another rant

I would like to use this message to clarify a frequent misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a collection of human knowledge, or rather a reflection of the current state of human knowledge. We combine what reliable sources and relevant people have written about a subject (secondary sources) with relevant first-hand information (primary sources) into encyclopedia articles (tertiary sources). We are bound by what those sources have said. As said in Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia: "We require that sources be cited for all significant claims, and we do not permit editors to publicize their personal conclusions when writing articles. Editors must follow a neutral point of view; they must only collect relevant opinions which can be traced to reliable sources." If the consensus among scholars is that something took place, we say that it took place and attribute that to those scholars. That's not the opinion of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has no opinion. We are not in a position to prove them wrong, that is not what Wikipedia is for. We're in the business of writing an authoritative summary of what relevant and notable scholars have said, but we don't enter into a debate with them. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is aimed at me, what I am worried about it is that what is written on the article may not be what is given in the reference. Unfortunately, I have seen those kind of misusage of references here on Wikipedia several times, and I am not sure that this one reflects what is in the reference correctly. The tag I want to add is {{not verified}}, bur this tag is for sections, I want to be able to put it after that particular sentence. Please if such a tag exists, replace {{dubious}} by that. Thanks. Without it being verified, the fact (?) that it is accepted by most scholars is also disputed. Like I said before, we have 69 academics who might not prefer the usage of the term genocide. Again, nobody debates the deaths of people, at least the deaths of Armenians, but the term 'genocide', apparently it is quite important, may be disputed. deniz^T_C 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of those 69 scholars do in fact agree that a genocide did take place. Most of them were duped into thinking that they were signing a something that would call for Armenia and Turkey to open their archives [4].--MarshallBagramyan 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Armeniapedia website uses there our "weasel words", who, how many? Also the Turkish side has had 'no doubt about the essential truth of the Armenian genocide', the fact that many people have died, either, as far as I know. And on unrelated note, why do we have this Armeniapedia, do you know? We already have Armenian wikipedia. deniz^T_C 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Israel Charney is not the author of Armeniapedia...--MarshallBagramyan 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this document should be included in this article

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/p_lordmayor.htm

It is from the British government of 1915 and in no uncertain terms describes the situation as it was. 217.114.124.241 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Genocide Memorial Picture

What happened to the image of the Genocide Memorial? It appears to have been deleted but I can't find a reason for that to have been done. 148.63.236.141 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about File:Armenia Tsitsernakaberd.jpg, it was deleted for copyright reasons per Commons:Deletion requests/Armenian Genocide memorial images. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the comments and the pdf linked from there, it seems the image should be legit.

"Article 16. Free use of the work located in open for attendance (public) places

Without the consent of the author and another copyright holder and without paying the author's remuneration it is permitted to reproduce, broadcast works of architecture, photography or figurative arts which are located in public places, with the exception of the cases when the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or broadcasting, and when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes."

It's oddly phrased in English, but the image is a work in a public place and Wikipedia is not commerical. Seems it should be allowed. The discussion seemed to assume that Armenia doesn't permit this,but reading the text, it seems to allow it when it is either a panoramic image OR when its non-commercial. 148.65.24.76 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't permit special licensing to Wikipedia - Images released only for non-commercial purposes are always deleted. Images need to be released under the GDFL, into the Public Domain or similarly freely licensed (such as when the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose) WilyD 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Content moved from the article

I moved the below material from the intro section according to NPOV#Undue weight. The position of a small minority should not take up the majority of the important intro section, but at the same time it is sourced and reasonably well written. Perhaps it could be useful elsewhere? The Republic of Turkey rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. Turkey also does not accept the deaths were the results of an intention from Ottoman authorities to eliminate Armenian people indiscriminately. Besides the disagreements, it acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, but counters that Turks died as well, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I. Turkey insists on using the word "relocation", but not deportation, when referring to Tehcir, as the destinations were then within the Ottoman Empire.

According to Ferguson, it is now widely acknowledged to have been the first true genocide. Some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide. To date twenty-one countries have officially recognized it as genocide. -- Karl Meier 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph which does not cover the 3% of the whole article becomes an issue?--OttomanReference 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the Turkish position on this issue isn't mentioned in the lead at all. I think it should be. It is covered in a substantial part of this article, it has an article of its own and it plays an important role in the relations between Turkey and the EU in particular. I think we should mention in the lead that Turkey rejects the applicability of the term/concept Genocide. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With the most recent changes the minority position is actually again being mentioned in the lead section, and this time, fortunately, not in what seems to in a direct violation of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. -- Karl Meier 23:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. It does not ask us to give an incomplete description of what might be a minority view. We are not going to say, oh we reached 50 characters, lets break the sentence here. What the lead is lacking is the Armenian position, the lead can be longer for an article of this size. Having the sentence "Besides the disagreements, it acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, but counters that Turks died as well, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I." in the lead is a must in my opinion. You can move the relocation part down, but I think it should stay here. deniz^T_C 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand anything. What WP:NPOV#Undue Weight is as the name indicate about that we should not give equal or more weight to minority opinions, such as holocaust denialism on the holocaust article or genocide denialism on this. If we give too much weight to the denialist opinions in the intro section, the problem is that we might risk to distort the readers understanding of the realities regarding this issue, and make them somehow believe that that the denialist position is accepted among the experts regarding these events. The denialism is notable and should properly be mentioned, but the amount of space dedicated to it in the important intro section, should be reflect these realities. -- Karl Meier 06:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand everything. The Holocaust denials and the position Turks take that summing up the events of that period as an "Armenian Genocide" are dishonest and ignore the violence undertaken by Armenians against their state, amongst other complications. Mentioning these things is a must, and putting the text recommended ("Besides the disagreements, it acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, but counters that Turks died as well, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence...") is on the right track. If you did this, honestly, Turks could look at this article and not feel terribly wronged.

Your comment really makes the tragedy here clear: you are afraid that if you give "too much weight to the denialist opinions" -- or the facts and evidence of the "denialists" (that's not a slur, by the way) -- people might actually be persuaded!!!!!

Since there is a dispute -- and this article should document BOTH SIDES of a dispute and present NEITHER as fact -- the intro should outline the dispute, which requires the abbreviated position of each to be expressed.

It's clear what's going on -- you don't want the other side to even be told. I'm not speaking of stating opinions as fact, either. You'd actually squelch evidence, under the banner of "Undue Weight". The argument is very real. 150 million Turks disagree with the position, as well as serious academics.

Summary

1)So, I think the above quote, or something like it, should be in the intro. It's just a simple statement of the opposing position. What's so threatening about that?

2) The opposing position should be attributed not only to the Turkish government (as the ultra-abbreviated opposing opinion is in the current intro) but also to a minority of respected academics.

I can tell you, through Turkish eyes, that simple addition would make this page much more tenable. It's appropriate, it's fair, and it's absolutely necessary if you will honestly call this a "good article" and send it off to school children.

There is a distinction between the Holocaust and what happened in Anatolia during that period: No serious academic denies the Holocaust. Serious academics do deny an Armenian Genocide took place. The most prominent academic is noted in the article, but the fact that he dissents is so important that it needs to be mentioned in the intro.

That's my two cents. If the dispute is so ridiculous, giving the other side reasonable, accurate, and cogent representation should not be something you'd resist! These aren't skin-heads denying, these aren't people who want Armenians dead. These are serious people seeking truth, and when they dissent about such a serious matter, it should be noted in the intro. Please, be reasonable. The Holocaust comparisons are not applicable. We wouldn't give time to Neo-nazi historical interpretations, but this is not the Holocaust! There are two very real sides in this argument, and serious academics dissent from the "Armenian" position. Include a real survey of the contentions of the dissenters in the intro, as well as in the body. How can you not mention that Armenian's were killing Turks??!? How? If Jews had been killing Germans, wouldn't that be relevant in a Holocaust article? If equal numbers had died during in-fighting? Let's get real. You're keeping important facts out of this article, and that's disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would probably reword it to somthing more like "While the goverment of Turkey acknowledges that during World War One many Armenians died, it also states that Muslims died as well and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War.". For a two-paragraph introduction, I think two or three sentences is plenty. It may also be appropriate to mention that such statments are considered genocide denial by many in the introduction. The Myotis 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with that rewording. Like I said before, I think we should include what Armenia is saying. The BBC article might be helpful. And, people, please check the edits you are reverting before writing your edit summaries. deniz^T_C 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way we should quote anything from a BBC article. If you want to add anything, cite an established, uncontroversial expert. -- Karl Meier 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC is used all over Wikipedia as a reference. If you do not like the source, please tag it with vc, do not remove it. deniz^T_C 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also check the number of refs to Balakian (10, I guess), even more than Dadrian. deniz^T_C 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that policy including WP:RS is violated a whole lot of places, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't write this article according to policy. If you want to include something, use proper sources, and do not attempt to present the views of the vast majority of scholars as a specific "Armenian" view. Doing that is not just a violation of NPOV, it is to provide our readers with false information. -- Karl Meier 10:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is not RS about BBC? That article gives an overview of the subject, both in historical and modern perspective. In any case, I reverted you as well - the very least work with others insted of simply reverting. Deniz has been meticolously working and revising and trying to address points raised. You even reverted the dates on the expand tags!! Baristarim 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the sentence before that. It is the Armenian view. It should be presented as such. The scholarly view is not always that for instance 1.5 million people died, etc. Also that sentence is mostly from BBC's summary. To have NPOv, what we should write is things like that International Assoc of Genocide scholars accepted it as a genocide. If you want to insist on not having the Armenian view, please remove that para only. You can revert yourself, and I can remove that paragraph now. Ok, Baris di dthe revert, I am removing the paragraph. deniz^T_C 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you are not presenting a view that is specifically Armenian, but the concensus view among the vast majority of scholars. To present that view as something that is specific to Armenians makes sense in a Turkish nationalist context, but fact is that is just blatantly false. I will revert back to the last good version of the intro section. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur over the debate about the numbers. By the way Karl, pls stop overusing the Holocaust comparison - you know that the Holocaust denial bit is streaking on thin ice to become a straw man of some sorts in relation to this article.. Everyone knows that there has been much more debate and confusion here than about the Holocaust, about many aspects of the case, particularly in a larger historical perspective. The fact that it is recognized by most as genocide is mentioned amply in the intro, but the details do not make the unanimity among scholars (numbers, who did what, at which particular point etc) - for this reason, giving a statement of the primary Armenian discourse (eg 1.5mil died) is not out-of-place, on the contrary is clarifying. It also has a source which neatly summarizes the whole thing. Baristarim 11:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be controversial to compare it to another genocide? The Nazis 6 million Jews and 6 million others, the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians (and hundred of thousands of other non-Turks, but that is another issue)? The mass killings and the racism behind the crimes are similar. -- Karl Meier 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the position and edits of Karl Meir here 100%. This is exactly what I have been saying for the past few months - we are absolutly giving undue evidence to the (Turkish Government sponsored) denial of the Armenian Genocide. Certainly we need to acknowledge this denial - as such - as denial of accepted truth/facts (ie it needs to be presented as denial - as the phenomonon of denial with some history and perspective to it as denial [perhaps/certainly elaborated in the denial article itself]) as well as - of course - present an overview of the specific position(s) taken by the Republic of Turkey (ie its official agencies and/or spokespersons and/or scholars associated with it). BUT - we certainly should not overemphaize such positions to give them greater legitimacy then they deserve. We need to focus on the known facts of this genocide which are underrepresented as compared to the multiple statements of Turkish denial - considering the scholarly validity (based on numbers, published, researched positions and acceptence by governments, international agencies and organizations and by what is known and accepted worldwide). BTW - our resident Turkish lawyer Baristarim - I would bet you any amount of money that if a poll were done among Western nations (Europe/North America - etc) - we would find far more numbers and percentage of people who in fact hold views that doubt or deny the Holocaust then who hold such views regarding the Armenian Genocide (more would likely not have even heard of the Armenian Genocide) - my point being - in counter to yoru point - that in fact Holocaust denial is a far greater and more noteworthy phenomenon then Armenian Genocide denial - thus - by your reasoning - deserved of greater emphasis in the appropriate article. I would even postulate that a greater number of (actual? OK at least mimikry of...) scholarly studies exist which deny the Holocaust then which deny the Armenian Genocide - and the quality - in terms of academic standing - of many of those who publish in denial of the Holocaust is as well arguably greater then those who deny the Armenian Genocide. That the government of Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide is both noted clearly here and is well known in general - that they subsidize and sponser scholars and lobbying groups to do such perhaps needs to be better presented - but none of this legitimizes the position to warrent presentation on par with the facts of this issue as are widely known and accepted and supported by historical evidence and academic research - in every way as legitimatly and as accepted as that of the Holocaust. And denial of this genocide is in no appreciable way (besides Turkish Government intragecence) different the denial of the Holocaust. Likewise comparsisons between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are entirely and demonstratably valid - so enough whining already - including and specifically concerning numbers of Armenains killed - which is absolutly not an Armenain invention as you and other deniers like you contend (in EXACTLY the same manner and using the same type of arguments as those who deny that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis!)--THOTH 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the into is a bit wordy, and introducing more text, especially dubiously misleading text like has been removed doesn't serve the purpose of making the article good. The current Turkey denies this was a genocide, but nobody takes them seriously is all the intro needs - the only problem with the intro is the According to Ferguson phrase which serves to discredit something that seems fairly straightforward. WilyD 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is short enough. This is a controversial subject and as long as we can reach a consensus on the content of the lead, lengthiness shouldn't be a most important criteria. I disagree with your other points. deniz^T_C 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the text would be fine within the article itself - but not in the introduction. Additionally it should be noted that this is the CURRENT position of the Republic of Turkey - as an examination of the historical positions taken by Turkey over time would show a shift from outright denial, to blame of Armenians, to the current position that nothing untoward occured to the Armenians particularly worth mentioning.--THOTH 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

tags

I tagged ref #6 (IAGS) as dubious, b/c the reference does not support the sentence, as far as I can see. But it's almost morning, please you check yourself as well. If it doesn't mention it, please replace the ref by another one that supports it. Please do not misuse references. Also Ramsay is primary source, should be removed along with the text, if we cannot find a secondary source completely justifying it, in which case we can just remove the reference to Ramsay. deniz^T_C

I moved the large footnote to its section. Needs a cleanup now, I did some. Also at several places, we have weasel statements. deniz^T_C 04:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After this last edit (which I hope Alaexis will revert), I am going to go to the second stage for now. I am very busy anyway. deniz^T_C 06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, please don't forget to replace Ramsay and restore other tags. deniz^T_C 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian transliterations

Would it be possible to get some IPA transcriptions for the Armenian text. No offence, but most normal non-Armenians probably don't a clue how words such as "c'ejaspanut'iwn" are pronounced :) ---Ploutarchos 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

2005 film?

A recent article by Robert Fisk states that there is a 2005 documentary on the Armenian genocide (which he does not name). It's not mentioned in this article--so does anyone know what this film is? Badagnani 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I searched some more and found that two films were made in 2006. I've added a "Documentary films" section and placed the titles there. Badagnani 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa)

Why is this section littered with citation needed tags? The linked sub articles cite Philip H. Stoddard, (1963) "The Ottoman Government and the Arabs, 1911 to 1918: A Study of the Teskilat-i Mahsusa," Princeton University. -Does this source cover the content? <<-armon->> 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The the text that does not have the references should be removed. --OttomanReference 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish position throughout the years

THOTH, you said above that the position of the Turkish government on the Armenian Genocide has changed throughout the years, "from outright denial, to blame of Armenians, to the current position that nothing untoward occured to the Armenians particularly worth mentioning." Can you (or others) elaborate on this, and incorporate it into the section on "The position of the Turkish government"? That way we can not only clarify how the Turkish government feels about this matter at this moment in time, but also place it in a historical perspective. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little time - but I will see what I can do. I think this type of presentation is even more relevant to the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide"article - and my thoughts on this are to document denial of the Genocide since the beginning - how it was covered up and denied while it was occuring - to the present. The only problem is that such a presentation might require presenting bits of original evidence and cobbling together a case - thus perhaps dabbling into what might be termed "original research" or what not...and like many things I consider along these lines (in regards to this subject and article) I'm tempted just to write a book (and let others quote me here! lol)...again always the issue of available time however...but yeah - I'll see what I can do.--THOTH 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also indicate change in Armenian position, number of casualties, etc. Also why is this article filled with OR again, why are my tags not restored? deniz^T_C 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Showering the article with tags is not going to make it better. Offer an alternative or sources.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, readding one tag, which was removed prematurely, and which was earlier added by me rightfully, imo, as the source does not support the statement is showering huh? I could very well do what everyone else does and remove that sentence. This is the second time you know. I am even entitled to be pissed off as my tags were removed. Just find a valid source, I am not the one who added it, I am not going to read gazillions books to find one sentence. I don't know if you are the one who added it. deniz^T_C 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it is but another denial tactic.--THOTH 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Armenian position may that be? I don't believe that any Armenians are the original sources for the 1.5 million killed figure that has apeared in (German and American) consular reports, governmental correspondence and newspaper articles of the time - etc. Nor do I think you or anyone can make any kind of case whatsoever that the 1.5 million figure is one that is held only by Armenians or Armenian scholars much as no one can just make a claim that it is only Jews who hold to the fact that approximatly or to the best of our knowledge about 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. No - this again - is a typical tactic of genocide denial - seen in every genocide that is denied - where the perpetrators or their apologists attempt to minimize the number killed and question the factuality of such figures. In fact this has been a key peice of Turkish denial since the beginning and over the years we have seen various claims of Armenians killed by various Turkish spokespersons (such as the Turkish Historical Society) - claiming as few as 10,000 or 50,000 Armenians killed throughout Anatolia and then counterclaiming (much as Nazi apologists do for Germans deaths in WWII) that more Turks died during the WWI period then Armenians - etc (and attempting to blame the victims - in this case the Armenians - for the calamity that occured and for their own demise). Of course any objective person can understand (the low value and deceptiveness of) these claims and see through them and understand what is being (shamefully) attempted. These are not scholarly claims but mere denialist propoganda. Which brings me to one point that should be made about denial (of the Armenian Genocide) - regarding how such as changed and evolved over the years - is that the denial is clearly reactive to efforts on the part of the Armenian community to obtain recognition for the Genocide. Thus to me - in this article - I believe that the denial of the Armenian Genocide should rightly be treated in the following manner - a section titled something like - "Efforts toward recognition of the Armenian Genocide and its denial by Turkey" is required. I suggest this because this process and history is indeed a notable part of the greater issue surounding the Armenian Genocide itself (and it is commonly accepted that denial is the eighth and final stage of genocide). It is difficult for us to truly understand and appreciate the total and utter devestation of the Anatolian Armenian nation and the psychological scars and physical and life challenges experienced by survivors who were dispersed into other cultures around the world. Not only was perhaps as many as 75% of the Armenian population of Anatolia utterly destroyed (killed to death) and nearly every single Armenian town, village and city where Armenians had once lived in their Anatolian homeland now devoid of Armenians - but the CUP/Ottoman Turkish Government deliberatly acted to decapitate the Armenian leadership (political and clergy) leaving Armenians with few intellectuals or leaders to express themselves on behalf of the Armenian community. (and this is the signifigance of commemorating this day April 24) Nor within the Diaspora was there initially any chance for an outward looking political organization - Armenians were purely concerned with survival - with preventing their own extinction. And the fact that Armenians of the Caucuses became trapped and silenced behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union added to this loss of voice for the Armenian community (and cause for Genocide recognition). And any study of the political events surounding the post WWI "peace process" can well understand how Armenians got the short shift vis a vis everyone elses political and economic interets. Thus the Armenian Genocide was largely forgotten (and this in turn inspired both R Lemkin and A Hitler each in their own ways...). But with the advent of the maturation of the 2nd generation of Armenians in the Diaspora and with Armenians establishing themselves, educating themselves and becomming empowered - things changed. Armenians began to reflect and understand how they had been utterly cheated (from even mere acknowledgement of their suffering...and more of course...) and the pain was (and is) still there - magnified by the fact that this/their Genocide is denied and largely forgotten. This is when Armenians began attempts towards Genocide recognition - in multiple spheres - with political action, education, scholarly programs, and pressure on Turkey - etc) - and of course even ASALA and such groups in the 1970s/80s - can be seen in this context (with the goal of getting recognition of the Genocide, pressuring Turkey and showing it as a denier nation and regarding the frustration over the international forgetfulness...and while we may disagree and be disgusted with their methods I think history will credit them with being at least partially effective in their cause). And here too the modern era of Turkish Genocide denial begins and can be examined - from its early crudeness to its current sophistication - and indeed I contend (and even Turkish spokespersons [such as McCarthy] have expressed) that it is entirely a reactive process. Anyway enough for now - but I hope I have at least made a case for this issue of recognition itself - as well as denial to both be included in the article and presented in the manner that I describe.--THOTH 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Denizz does have a point, in a way. Much of this happened in the territory of the current Republic of Armenia, the victims were Armenians, etc. It would improve the article if we explain the exact position of the Armenian government on this matter, and how the government puts this position into practice in terms of foreign relations, Armenian-Turkish relations in particular. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aecis - I think you are reading more into his "point" and in fact missing his "point" - he is not refering to the Armenian Government but is essentially claiming that anything other then the Turkish position (denial and minimization) is the Armenian position (acceptance as genocide plus details regarding numbers killed, complicity of the CUP led Ottoman Governmental apparatus - etc). BTW I have no problem with a presentation of the Armenian Governmental position - however I am a bit skeptical of such governmental positions in general as they are often based upon political expediency rather then actual fact. The Armenian Government position (essentially the postion of the executive) has somewhat shifted since the founding of the current Republic in 1991 when Levon Ter-Petrosian was President to now (since 1998)under President Kocharian. While each has been careful not to say or do anything that would outright anger Turkey, place blame or make demands etc Ter-Petrosian conciously made the Armenain genocide entirely a non-issue - due in part I imagine based on the fragile existance of the new Armenian State and for practicle considerations (ie wishing for trade and normal relations with Turkey). Kocharian has taken a more straightfoward approach of acknowledgement and wishing for Turkey to do more in this regard but again he has refrained from making any claims for compensation or such - even going so far as stating the the nation of Armenia has no land or material claims against Turkey arising from the Armenian Genocide. One reason Kocharian can be perhaps less concerned with upsetting Turkey is that Turkey has been blockading Armenia since their was with Azerbaijan - thus there are no good imediate prospects for normalized or trade relations. --THOTH 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. THOTH, at least, please break your text into paragraphs, etc, I have some attention deficit problems. The last one was close to "bite-size", but it would be better if it could be shorter. Anyway, I wikilinked Armenian to Armenia back then, if that's something. deniz^T_C 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, THOTH :-) And even if Denizz' intentions weren't pure, as you seem to suggest, he may have struck gold in the process. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It keeps saying that this is not a discussion topic and only editorial comments should be made, but Thoth is trying to smack the word " genocide" into our brains. I loved the part with "this is classic genocide-rejecting tactics". I really would like to analyze his huge paragraph word by word and use everything to form the tactic of a genocide-pusher. But my point is already made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.194.5 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A most excellent summation of the Armenian Genocide

I think this is one of the best short accounts of the Armenian Genocide I have ever read. The Wikipedia article could stand to cover some of the content presented here in a brief but very informative manner. http://www.warcrimes.info/shop/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=375 --THOTH 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Labour battalions

I have a question regarding the new section "Labour battalions." It says that "Enver ordered that all Armenians in the Ottoman forces, some as old as sixty, to be disarmed, demobilized and assigned to labor battalion units." Is anything known about the demographics of the "Armenians in the Ottoman forces"? Were the sixty-year olds rare exceptions, or were they quite common? If there was one 60-year old in a group of 1,000 20-year olds (exaggerated hypothetical situation), is it notable and relevant enough to mention it? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a new section, it's just reorganised from above. But otherwise your sentiment makes sense - is it particularly important how old or young the soldiers were, as long as they're regular adults? WilyD 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Executors of the Armenian Genocide

There is this link in the article that has no text associated to it. It is a separate concept. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it by changing the link text and adding the intro text from the article. I agree that the link to "Executors of the Armenian Genocide" which redirected to Operation Nemesis was confusing. <<-armon->> 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: OttomanReference's edit Fix the classification of "Operation Nemesis", It is not a military tribunal. There are two military tribunals. -makes sense to me. <<-armon->> 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check the military tribunal. Which part of "Operation Nemesis" included a military court? Did "Operation Nemesis" used military officers for the assassinations? Did ARF publicly declared the results of its analysis (every military tribunal has a public side)? Did ARF performed the executions under military code of justice? Did ARF informed the verdicts to the assassinated people? Did assassinated people had chance to a minimal defense? Could you open up your question, which part of military tribunal fits to "Operation Nemesis?" Thanks. --OttomanReference 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I support your breaking it out into another category. It's a contentious topic so I was really only attempting to see if there were any objections to doing that. <<-armon->> 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what this issue is about - linking "Executors of the Armenian Genocide" to Operation Nemesis and scuh - but just as an aside I can't imagine anyone defending the idea that those who were killed didn't completely deserve it. Did 1.5 million Armenians recieve fair justice? Did 1.5 million Armenians have a chance to defend themselves before "charges" against them? Would anyone have objected or shed a tear if an assassin were to have taken out a Hitler or an Eichmann or a Bormann or a Goebbles or a Hans Frank or a Megele had they escaped after the war (or any time - with or without trial)? And unlike after WWII where Nazis were actively hunted down by the Allied powers (and brought back to Germany and other places and put on trial) there was no such effort on the part of any nation after WWI regarding Turkish arch-criminals from the war. Armenians who had been so thourouly and utterly victimized and destroyed had no prospect for recourse - could rely on no one to help them - and had no real apparatus or access to information to have conducted proper trials and have had any hope that anyone would have just rounded up these criminals for them. So they did what they could to avenge themselves and serve justice on those so very deserving of punishment. So I fail to see what objection you seem to have Ottoman Reference - unless of course you consider that defending mass murderers and henious arch criminals is somehow a noble thing - for the good of your nation - which I find to be a very twisted view from a variety of angles...and I'm surprised at your seeming ignorance to how these very same men brought total destruction and ruin to your nation as well - while they enriched themselves (and these facts were indeed proven in post-war trials/tribunals and in fact a great many of those whom Nemesis went after had indeed already been condemned to death in various post war Ottoman trials) - then these men simply fled - and with plenty of assistance and coverage - and were living - sometimes luxuriously abroad with no worry or fear of any action taken against them. Well they were wrong and in at least a few cases justice was indeed served. And its rather appauling to see that anyone would take so much effort to defend their names or their reputations or for that matter those people - who as a group - commited such henious crimes against all humanity.--THOTH 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue I had with it, was that is was unclear what the link was about, and it linked to an article with a different title. The other issue was that is wasn't technically a military tribunal. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Nemesis. <<-armon->> 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Malta Exiles?

Here is what happened to Malta Exiles who were held for some three years, while searches were made of archives in Istanbul, London, Paris and Washington to find proof of their guilt...

On July 19, 1920, Winston S. Churchill, the then Secretary of State in the British War Cabinet, submitted to his Cabinet the following secret memorandum expressing his concerns in the matter of Malta Tribunal:

"I circulate to the Cabinet a long list of prominent Turkish politicians, ex-ministers, generals, deputies and others whom we are still keeping as prisoners at Malta. It seems to me that this list should be carefully revised by the Attorney General, and that those men against whom no proceedings are contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity."

PRO?FO. 371/ 5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War (Cabinet) on position of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated July 19,1920.

On March 31,1921, Lord Curzon's telegram to Sir Auckland Geddes, the British Ambassador in Washington:

"There are in hands of Majesty's government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution."

BritishArchives. PRO?F. 0. 371/ 6500/ E.3552, Curzon to Geddes Telegram No 176,dated March 31,1921

Sir Auckland Geddes's reply:

"I have made several inquiries at the State Department, and today l am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning the Armenian relocations, from the description, I am doubtful whether these documents are likely to prove useful as evidence in prosecuting Turks confined in Malta. Should His Majesty's government so desire, these documents will be placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Embassy on the understanding that the source of information will not be divulged.?"

British Archives: PRO?F. 0.371/ 6500/ E.6311 Geddes to Curzon, Telegram No 374, dated June 1921.

On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

"I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial.He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war.These reports,judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty's government,being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty's government. I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter."

British Archives: PRO?F. 0. 371/ 6504/E.8515 R.C. Craigie, British Charge d?Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon, Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921

Neutrality has nothing to do with this article. This article is as BIASED as it gets.

71.136.249.174 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Deli

They were exchanged for British prisoners held by Ataturk's clan of nationalists. If evidence was missing, that was because the Ottoman government had destroyed it after the war ended.--MarshallBagramyan 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

yes they were exchanged because Brits had nothing to accuse them and used them as POW for exchange. This is also present in English archives. Stating that "there is no document to accuse them, so use them for exchange". This is proposed by the Brits not Turks.

SO What about the Blue book that the English propaganda bureu prepared? what about all the documents Morgenthau had? What about the Lepsius? So they were not really credible documents after all. So basicly all the so-called documents that are said to prove the genocide were regarded as junk by the English back at 1921. No proof = no guilt. DOT.

The ottoman goverment destroying the documents is just pure speculation. Because of the ordering and archive system if a document was destroyed later it would easly be realised. Simply because the archive documents are consecutively numbered. in fact the ottoman archives are full of orders to protect the Armenians. Not to mention the documents on general rebelion and treason by Armenians.. the number of turks killed by armenian volunteers and armenian insurgents are 518.000 to 525.000 and this number is from the ottoman archives. No surprise that The Armenians (yes they were Armenians) who searched the otoman archives for the English could come up with nothing...

Simple FACTS: Armenian officers in the ottoman army in 1917: 170. In 1915, 1670 people (officers or ordinary people)were tried in court martial by CUP. 63 hanged, over 600 prisoned or exiled due to bad treatmen to Armenians. (this is also documented in US news papers) Ottoman minister of Foreign affairs of the CUP goverment and the ambassador to England was Armenian. There were 15 Armenian parliementers in the CUP Goverment.

Pretty much like the NAZI regime isnt it?neurobio 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Brits were relying on documents generated and held by the US State Department for their prosecution. US was unwilling to turn these documents over at that time - thus no case. One must understand that there was no precedent for such tribunals - this was potentially breaking new ground. Prosecutions of this type are extremely difficult and of course the Brits were more interested in getting their (extremely politically connected) prisoner(s) back - thus it was too much bother to deal with - particularly as well considering that they had none of the principles - these had already escaped. There were of course trials and convictions by the post-war Ottoman military tribunals that did introduce very specific damning evidence resulting in a number of significant CUP convictions (and death sentences!). We have of course already presented and discussed scholarly analysis regarding CUP destruction of relevant Ottoman Archival documents - as well as the known and proven use of cover orders and secret ones for dealing with the Armenians. The CUP court marshalls you refer to were not for mistreatment of Armenians (though CUP tried to claim this as a cover - beginings of denial already...) - these individuals - mostly Kurds and corrupt local officials - were tried and convicted primarily of improper appropriation of Armenian (as well as in some case Muslim) properties - where the Ottoman State was cut out - thus these people were convicted - essentially - of stealing from the Ottoman State! The Blue Book is incredibly sourced and the acconts and information are highly corroborated and it was produced with impeccible evidentuary standards. It is absulotely beyond question factual and true - only a denier trying to twist the truth would claim otherwise. Likewise Lepsius and Monganthau's accounts are both corroborated and beyond question. You are attemptint to disparage honorable and respected people who have a proven history of such. Again - its entirely ad hominim and pointless. "All the eyewitnesses were liars" is not a credible defense. Likewise your 500,000 figure of Turks killed by Armenians is entirely laughable and unsupportable. These figures have many times been shown as fabricated (as part of the denials while the Genocide was taking palce even). Get real. There was absolutly no capability for Armenians to do such even if they wished to - this is and has been proven. Plus there does not exist any corraboration for these claims. Why would German officials and ambassadors and laymen alike - citizens and officials of Germany - Turkey's ally during the war - only send reports back documenting the slaughter of Armenians by Turks. If Turks were being slaughtered by Armenains at anywhere near this rate the Germans would have been trumping it up to the world. As they did not - but only expressed horror and embarrasment at the CUP/Ottoman actions - we can see and know what really did occur during this time. I really must again suggest that you refrain from editing this article. Your obvious biases and use of questionable argumentative tactics and willingness to twist facts to make your case make you entirely unsuitable for contribution in this article. Present some scholarly analysis - not this half-baked Tall A Tale type of analysis. And again - the Armenian Genocide is overwhelming accepted by scholars and historians and by all official accounts outside of those of one nation. You cannot hope to change that. You are only wasting our time here.--THOTH 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of this critical piece of information, whether it was due to US unwillingness as argued above by Troth or due to lack of evidence as indicated by the telegram by the British Embassy at Washington at the time, is a clear manifestation of deliberate filtering of historical facts to attain reader sympathy for the armenian position. Neutrality has nothing to do with this article! 71.136.250.254 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Deli

Earth to Beverly Hills 71-136-250-254 - There were no trials at Malta - there was no prosecution - there was no serious attempt at scouring archives or attempting to find evidence - etc - nothing happened except that the British held these (120? or so) individuals for safekeeping - as they were escaping from the Ottoman jails - and there was some vaugue but undertermined notion that there might eventually be international trials held - for various reasons - including the fact of Allied non-co-operation and the rise of the Nationalists - but more importantly Turkish blackmail and eventual prisoner exchange - nothing ever happened. Its just that simple. Is it that you deniers just have nothing really to go on that you attempt to grasp at such straws - make something out of nothing - and attempt to distort and misrepresent the historical facts? Is it me who is stupid and just can't understand or is it you?--THOTH 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The British telegrams I posted initially indicate the contrary. Your personal attacks and personal opinion of what really happened is simply vindicating. Providing partial information is called PROPAGANDA! 71.136.243.163 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Deli

OK then - Please provide details - name(s) of judges, prosecutors, defendents, specific charges against them, verdicts...heck where exatly on Malta where these trials held - at the local YMCA - Inquiring minds want to know! --THOTH 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

INDICTMENT is part of the legal process and includes hearings which decide whether there is enough evidence to commit the person(s) to trial. This article in its current form simply HIDES that ~150 top gov. officals and army officers who were held for 2.5 years were repatriated at the end of this process - which is a historical FACT! Your arguing that the trial never took place instead of saying "No evidence found so the contemplated legal actions foiled and the detainees were repatriated after 30 months. (Btw you are welcome to add a paragraph here explaining what went wrong, similar to Aydemir S.S reference under the international trials section)" is simply BIASED! 71.136.243.163 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Deli

Please provide the indictments filed for these criminals. Extensive coverage of the failed attempts at securing justice against Turks responsible for the Armenian genocide exists in Tanar Akcam's book - A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility in two chapters of the book both in Part 3 of the book - The Investigations and Prosecution of the War Crimes and Genocide - Chapter 6 is entitled The Question of Punishing the Turks and Chapter 9 (concerned primarily with the Post War Ottoman Military tribunals and the role of the Nationalists in truncating them) - The Final Phase of the Trials. In Chapter 9 (page 358) he presents the following - "The Allies had mountains of documents related to the Armenian Genocide, but these were mostly general and did not clearly implicate specific individuals. So the problem of finding enough evidence to take individuals to court remained unresolved....a large portion of the relevant documents (held by the Ottomans) had been destroyed or stolen, and there was no coordination between British and Turkish Authorities. The British never requested incriminating documentation. (several specific quotes from British officials follow regarding the hopelessenss of expecting to get such documentation from the Turks...for instance...) "...in August 1919, High Commissioner Calthorpe had said - 'The Turkish Government collected a considerable amount of incriminating evidence, but hoping to lay our hands on it is in vain.' - Admiral de Robeack was similarly concerned. 'It would be hard under these conditions to convict most of the exiles before an Allied court.' Thus, the British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution and decided to hold the exiles as hostages against British prisoners of war." Akcam goes on to describe the fact that the Turkish government was never pressured to provide any evidence and other Allied governments were equally uncooperative. Thus - no "Malta Tribunals" and no trials - to claim such and to claim exoneration of Turks due to such - is fiction - no such thing ever occured - not even any attempt to set up a court or to truly make any attempt to assemble a legal case. So your claim here is faulty in its premiss and concerns entirely fictional speculation and misrepresentation on your part. Prisoner were purly held for a prisoner exchange. While many may have wished to try them - no one ever did nor made any serious attempt to do so. There were absolutly no "legal actions foiled" - to claim such you must provide us the names of the prosecutors and the charges that they filed - you cannot do so - thus you are speaking out of you ass. --THOTH 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the British ultimatly gave up on the idea of prosecution = contemplated legal actions foiled. Stop HIDING the FACTS! 71.136.243.163 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Deli

Make sure to copy the exact phrase next time. 71.136.243.163 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Deli

And again (as I have stated this before in response to a claim that presence of etnic Armenian officials in the ottoman government negates the claim of genocide). If I were to produce a list of Jews who functioned in the Nazi military and government - which I most assuradly can - does this disprove the Holocaust?--THOTH 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

US involvement to international trials

Please continue this discussion under talk:Malta Tribunals. OttomanReference 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited that article for accuracy - however I still strongly recommend that the article - which concerns trials that were never held - nor were any legal proceedings even begun - be deleated. --THOTH 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Armenian opinions

During a previous discussion, the idea of a separate section about the opinions in Armenia (both within the Republic of Armenia and among ethnic Armenians) was raised. I would like to bring this idea back to life. I want to suggest creating a draft version here. What should be included? I suggest the following:

• Armenian historians: which historian states what? What is the current state of research? Who are notable Armenian Genocide historians?
• Armenian politicians: how do they think Armenia should position itself with regards to the Armenian Genocide? Which politicians support a dialogue with Turkey and which politicians seek a more confrontational approach? Does it play a role in electoral campaigns? What is the relative weight of the Armenian Genocide in the foreign policy of the Armenian government in comparison to other issues? (I recall THOTH saying above that the current president of Armenia makes much more an issue of this than his predecessor)
• Armenian NGO's: Are there any organisations that deal specifically with victims and their relatives, similar to for instance the Yad Vashem institute in Israel?
• Armenian deniers: Do they exist? What arguments do they use? What are relevant works? How are they perceived by colleagues and by the public in Armenia?

Any thoughts/additions/suggestions? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems good. A well thought suggestion. We might add few things later. It might be not that easy to find material though. Deniz^T_C 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that pointless and offensive: Armenian opinion is near unanimous. That's why you have demonstrations on April 24 in every country where there is a diaspora, the US, Greece, France, Germany, Argentina, Iran, Britain, Canada, etc. There are some Armenian denialists and most, if not all, are Armenians from Turkey where they have been brought with up with the Turkish educational system and been indoctrinated with the Turkish denialist atmosphere which is incessantly bombarded by "so-called", "Armenian lies", "genocide falsifiers" "aggressors rather than victims". Even them, are Armenians who do it overtly and rather than risk persecution.

I can not think of any non-Turkish sources where t\such proclamations are presented genuine.--MarshallBagramyan 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the near 100% opinion of the Armenian people is that the events constituted a genocide, shouldn't we mention that as well? Because that would raise the question: how do the Armenians feel about the position of Turkey on this matter? If we present the views on the side of the alleged perpetrators (I'm trying to be as diplomatic as I can possibly be towards both sides), shouldn't we also present the views on the side of the victims? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See also section

Should we clear up the See also section of all those articles that already appear/are wiki-linked in the article itself? It's too long I find. - Fedayee 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

although the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa in 1904-1907 is clearly the first organized state genocide as the UN Whitaker report concluded. Why does including that sentence diminish this article in any way? Both Armenians and Herero were victims of genocides in their respective colonial empires (ottoman and German) and both genocides were organized and systematic. 80 percent of the total Herero population and 50 percent of the total Nama population were killed, and the UN whitaker report concluded it was the earliest genocide. Bleh999 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your edit was the location. The lead sentence is supposed to give a quick and short information about the article. Talking about other genocides in the lead would throw off the readers. I don't think anybody would mind if you included in the See also section. --VartanM 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming

An admittedly possibly POV motivated, but by no means completely irrelevant, discussion about the naming of articles such as this one came up on the Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki page (towards the bottom). I would also direct you here and suggest that consideration be given to renaming the article? Or alternatively NPOV justification of why this shouldn't happen.BeL1EveR 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME governs article titles - the short of it is - articles are placed at titles that reflect what they're actually called. WilyD 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

40 U.S. States

Where is it written that these 40 states recognize the genocide? There needs to be a refrence point of some sort. Briaboru

See here[7] 40th was Ohio. --VartanM 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish government rejects the characterization of the events as genocide.

In the first paragraph there is a sentence that says "The Turkish government rejects the characterization of the events as genocide." Because in 1918 the Turkish government did accept the reality of the Armenian genocide I think that this sentence has to be clarified like the "The current Turkish government rejects the characterization of the events as genocide."

Added the word "modern", should fix the problem.DBaba 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

The position of the international community really seems to be talking about the politics of recognizing the Armenian Genocide. I don't suppose there would be a campaign for recognition, if not for the Turkish state campaign of denial; and if the denial entry is largely omitted from this entry, so too should the Recognition section. Also, it's wayyy too long to keep the article in presentable form (not to mention, it's also really not very relevant to the subject matter how the Basque Parliament or the people of New South Wales feel about things.) Happy to engage in talk with anyone concerned, peace, DBaba 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Turkey's position (Armenian Genocide denial) has its own separate page, while recognition does not. Therefore I think it makes sense that recognition receives more information on the main page, as there is no other place to describe it. The Myotis 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I created a new page entitled Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The section that formerly included this text now links to the new article. It's a very active section, it looks like things are constantly appended, and the section would only continue to grow; seems like it deserves its own home. As a side point, I also perceive that section to be a political phenomenon distinct from the actual matter at hand in the AG entry.DBaba 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done - I like it!--THOTH 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

-How come the section beats around the bush. The motion in the US FAILED and the US govt. does NOT recognize the "genocide"; its as simple as that. They tried but failed. Why are we sugar-coating that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.218.198 (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

producing neutrality

I think it's best it says something "Armenians allege that 1.5 million were killed by the ottomans and Turks allege few or none were killed".

Im sure both sides have sources but I think this is the best way to reach NPOV since we really do not know what exactly happened in 1915 or whichever year this is suppossed to have happened.-Vmrgrsergr 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So we are to completely discard the opinions of the historians and all other neutral parties as unimportant? And having sources is irrelevant- even holocaust deniers cite sources- the use of sources on Wikipedia is instead determined by the credibility of the sources and the acceptability of their interpretation. You seem to be under the impression the NPOV means giving all sides and equal say. If so, I strongly recommend you, as I have many others on my user page, read through WP:UNDUE. Surley we would not write the Holocaust article as "Jews allege that 6 million were killed by the ottomans and Neo-Nazis allege few or none were killed", nor use a similar precedent for an article about any other genocide. The Myotis 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your suggestion and your contention that "we really do not know what exactly happened in 1915 or whichever year this is suppossed to have happened". In each case you are only presenting your own ignorance. Please try to learn a little something about what you comment on prior to making suggestions regarding content. Myotis comments above are also on the mark.--THOTH 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, people! The Holocaust is something different! The alleged Armenian Genocide has nowhere near as much recognition as the Holocaust. I understand that you could never say such a thing about the Holocaust, but there are way more people who disagree with the Armenian Genocide thesis than the Holocaust, because there's simply too much proof to support the Holocaust claim. I find this article barely neutral, and it gives very little information on the Turkish point of view, so I agree with what the guy is saying.

In fact, encyclopedias aren't interested in politically-charged revisionist histories of nationalist extraction, be they Turkish or Armenian. It's an encyclopedic article, not an apologia for the modern Turkish state's campaign to rehabilitate history. I agree that comparisons to the Holocaust are invalid, but to suggest that "proof" is somehow lacking is phenomenally naive, and quite unnecessarily insolent. RunningFridge's unsigned comment seems to suggest that the Armenian Genocide is the Armenian "point of view", when in fact it is the predominant point of view of all humankind. It's quite OK to be a dissident, all well and good, and yet not what Wikipedia is about.

That said, there's a lot of work to be done on the article! Anyone at all interested in that, or do we all rather prefer to toss around abrasive, childish argument? In particular, I'd like to replace some of those Dadrian and Balakian citations with more Zurchner and New York Times. The harrowing sincerity of the likes of User:Runningfridgesrule and User:Vmrgrsergr demonstrates the importance of rock-solid citation; that's my top priority, as I look at the entry. Thoughts?DBaba 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"comparisons to the Holocaust are invalid"? Says who? Says you? Most anyone (ie most historians who are familiar with the events of the Armenian genocide) would not agree and in fact the predominant view is that comparisons between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide are entirely valid. I suggest that you read holocaust survivor and genocide scholar Robert Melson's comparative study regarding the two events in which he terms them the only two modern cases of "Total Domestic Genocide" - this fact alone legitimizes the comparison and then beyond this there are an incredible array of directly comparative aspects of these two genocides - both performed by revolutionary/reactionary/hyper nationalistic political parties within states which were undergoing revolutionary change after collapse of Empire and falling fortunes from losses in recent past wars - both genocides occured during world wars where the perpetrator nations were territorial aggressors who villanized the victim ethno-religious groups as undermining the dominant society and being in collusion with national enemies - and both the Jews and Armenians were distinct (from the majority) ethnic and religious groups who had recently seen social and economic gains which were resented by the majority and each group was subject to racist hatred and violence and each genocide was perpetrated (and is denied) using incredibly similar methods...etc etc - I would say that there are plenty of grounds for not only direct comparison but in doing so comming to the conclusion of uncanny similarity - and this is the position of unbiased and aware historians. Aside from some particulars - in that we are dealing with different time, place and actors - it is very difficult to seriously claim that these two events are incomparible or that comparisons are invalid. --THOTH 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, the fact that 1 man compared them legitimizes the comparison. And the many comparisons extant further justify including a mention of the fact that people compare the two.

Shouldn't we also, then, include something about why certain eminent historians dissent from the view that the two share much in common? Or that the tragedy the befell the Armenians is best communicated as genocide? Especially since that would seem to ignore the fact that Armenians slaughtered many, many (read: hundreds of thousands) of Muslims during the same period?

External links

I'm a bit concerned about the External links section of the entry. I'm not sure what would be the right way to handle that section. At first I removed a recent addendum myself, because it was described as "Facts"; I found that description to be deliberately misleading.

Nonetheless, I think in retrospect I should have changed the title rather than completely remove the link. Part of the problem I keep having with some editors (all of whom coincidentally seem to acknowledge Ataturk on their user pages) is that they are insistent that the Armenian Genocide is an Armenian perspective, rather than the perspective of Americans, Germans, Danish, Swedish, British, Turkish, Armenian and others; it's just that some Turkish accounts dispute the photos and eyewitnesses of the vast majority of humankind.

In any case, the link my dear Wasqar appended might not necessarily be out of place, so long as it's honestly described. There are already many links in the article to far more extreme Turkish nationalist websites. I think the link to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey's document collection warrants being repeated in external links... And I also think those Russian websites could do for better explanation. For now, I'll root out some of those excess links. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Any of those genocide-recognition websites look too political to warrant inclusion?DBaba 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I already see 6 links to revisionist documents in the "Republic of Turkey government and popular opinion" section, and that really does seem to be quite even-handed. Placing more at the end breaks with the overall topic; it's just not further reading about the Armenian Genocide to go off and read the nationalist "marauding gangs" rigmarole. It seems a bit bizarre to get upset about the exclusion of a 7th link to a nationalist website. It's important to me that everyone's blood pressure does well here; I don't want Wasqar to be upset, but I think he may be upset because he's being unreasonable.DBaba 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Genocide

another one-sided story just to blame Turkey for everytihing! Do you know how many Turkish people has been tortured and killed? It is absoletely ridiculus to confused others with this artical.

Please, at least this one time, don't feed the troll. Simply ignore it, this page has enough of those anyways. It doesn't help anybody or anything, and is just waste of time. Regards; Kerem Özcan 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sad, very sad indeed that even in the 21th century we can find primitive minded people who are denyng the Armenian Genocide. Remember that this horrible event destroyed half of one of the most ancient civilized nation. We should find a solution to outcast and forbid the access to wikipedia for those blood-hungry pitekantrops.

He's not denying what happened for God's sake. He's pointing out that *you're* totally ignoring what happened to the Turks. Can you read? I know, and I bet he knows, that a million Armenians perished, many starving during deportation, many at the hands of Turkish soldiers, or armed civilains.

But, did you know hundreds of thousands of Turks died, too? Civilains! About a half-million.

Many of them died at the hands of the Armenians.

How can this not be relevant information in an article about the Armenian genocide? If the Jews were simultaneously committing massacres while they were being killed, would that not shed different light on the matter?

A very, very different light?

If they'd organized terrorist groups -- and the Armenians sources recognize that "terrorism" was tops on the agenda from the get-go -- before any blood was shed (the Jews would've had to have done that thousands of years prior!) between the groups... wouldn't that make you wonder if one side really wore that villain hat and the other side wore the white one?

Perhaps both sides played a role in the negative events that occurred? Again, nothing was justified -- including the slaughter of innocent Turkish civilains by the Armenians. And the deaths of the Armenians weren't justified, either. Nothing was.

I just want the full story told.

I also think the one-sided telling of this story is fueling hatred to this day. A more balanced telling of the history would almost certainly soften the animosity between the two sides.

I'm not a troll. (I'm not the original poster, either.) I'm trying to improve this page. If I'm wrong, someone here should be able to point me in the right direction, not chide and insult me. Thanks for your respectfulness in advance.

Opening

I've had some trouble with the changes to the opening made by User:Flavius_Belisarius. First and foremost, I count 78 words in the first sentence, so hopefully my revert didn't "blur" the facts any more than what stood previously.

He states that "Armenian resources" give a higher number of casualties, and I've insisted that he not assert a shared set of resources for all ethnic Armenians.

What's more, who really cares what Armenians have to say in the opening para of an encyclopedic article? Turning the opening into a passive-aggressive attack on (imagined) Armenian opinion takes it off course.

The reference to the Ottoman Archives is also out of place. The revisionism of the Republic of Turkey should be mentioned in the (amply cited) context of any references to "official" documents.

But mostly the sentence is just utterly unreadable. I don't want to come head to head with Flavius Flav in a way that might antagonize him, so any additional feedback would be quite welcome. Flavius, I could certainly find a middle road with you, if you'd understand why it's wrong to imply that Armenians have separate resources. DBaba 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be short and to the point. Adding Turkey's or Armenia's position is perhaps not a best place for it. --VartanM 23:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1. All figures are estimations, since there has never been an official death count. Therefore, the word "estimated" should be used before giving the figures in the opening section.

2. If the uppermost estimation figure (1,500,000 - according to the Armenian sources) is given, then the lowermost estimation figure (300,000 - according to the Turkish resources) should also be given. Otherwise, the definition "hundreds of thousands to 1.5 million" makes someone directly accept the figure as "1.5 million", because it is a specific number, whereas "hundreds of thousands" is not a specific figure. In my opinion, this is a pro-Armenian definition, as it only specifies the uppermost figure while blurring the lowermost figure. And purposefully so. Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, accepts Arnold J. Toynbee's figure of 600,000, which is actually closer to the Turkish estimation of 300,000 and further away than the Armenian estimation of 1,500,000. Flavius Belisarius 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1,5 million figure is not Armenian, it is the round number used by most next to 1,2 million. It was first used by the Germans during and after the Great War and then recycled by others. Britannica uses both, in one of its updated versions on Armenians it uses the 600,000 to 1,5 million, which is about the same range used by Encarta(Britannica also in prior editions used the 1,5 million figure without presenting ranges). The problem with Britannica research note(not to mention Yapp's who maintains McCarthy's version and who wrote the victims estimates figures) used for the losses is that it uses McCarthy and Toynbee. McCarthy maintains the minority position while Toynbee figures represent those of 1915 and the beginning of 1916. Martin Gilbert too estimates during those same dates as 600,000, but he add the 400,000 for what followed. Melson in his work mentions Toynbee figures and clearly mention that how valuable his figures are they do not cover what mostly happened in 1916 and what followed (Toynbee paper was submitted while the Anatolian Armenian convoys from Aleb and seroundings were sent back to Del-El-Zor). The League of Nations estimated the losses to a million which is about the mid-value. The Assembly of Turkish American associations put the figures to about 600,000, with even a paper suggesting 700,000. The Turkish scholar Fikret Adanir in a paper suggest over a million. Basically, I don't see how you find your numbers about independent sources placing it at 600,000. Britannica at the very least has changed its version over the years depending with who wrote it. The problem mostly was due to the Armenian massacres written by the same scholar who wrote the Ottoman Empire history, in one instance they even got a Turkish scholar known for the revisionist version to write the Armenian portion. The most recent ones, like the research note were from Yapp who maintains Justin McCarthy's controversial views. ­

An easier way to see this, is for you to provide neutral papers, third party sources (this includes Turkish scholars who wrote in peer reviewed publications). There actually are two, one is from Ezel Kural and Stanford Shaw (AKA the Shaws) and the other from Kâmuran Gürun(We will discard Halacoglu if you don't mind). But if we can provide those, so as we could provide the other upper ranges, such as those of Rummel who provides something like 1,8 millions. In simple term, I think the most reasonable range is 600,000 to 1,5 million, which mid range is about a million. Anatolmethanol 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the article? Anatolmethanol 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think hundreds of thousands sound very ambigious. It can be anywhere around 200.000 to a million. If there's an amount of reliable sources pointing the same number, which I guess there's not because there's not a consensus on the issue, I am also with putting the lowest and highest estimations. The reader will probably notice that the figure is not the lowest or the highest but somwhere in between. Kerem Özcan 11:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's misleading, even the Turkish government doesn't really support this number. Besides Halacoglu who supports even a lower number, most Turkish scholars prefer taking 600,000. And this even those who refuse the qualification of genocide(those who support it prefer Djemal provided figures, which is 800,000 killed). The average instimation is about a million, we should use the range including figures which are most used. 600,000 in one side, 1,5 million on the other. You will be able to place nearly all estimations published after Gurun era in that range. So the reasonable range is that. The hundreds of thousand was probably put there by an editor who didn't want to take the risk to choose the lower figure of the range. Anatolmethanol 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point that Kerem is making, that we should be specific when we can be. But can we be? What if we said hundreds of thousands, linking that phrase down to the casualties section? This would incorporate the info that Flavius wants to include, without mauling the intro. We can certainly elaborate the casualty section, as long as we keep its size within reason. I've noticed that some edits have gone right after those opening figures without regard for citation, so I'm thinking the most durable solution might be to generalize to hundreds of thousands in the opening, to avoid dragging out the intro in a numbers conflict. Cheers, DBaba 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The casualty section is misleading, and it does not correspond with the Ottoman Armenian casualties page. Armenia does not have any official figures, it recycle what others provide. The Turkish state figures? I don't think ranges of figures should be provided according to states but rather academia. Also, I don't see how Toynbee could go there when his figure represent those of 1915, it excludes the three following years. While it is true that the first year alone more than half of those who died, died... we still can't include him in the 1914 to 1918, because it exclude another 400,000 victims and possibly more. Also isen't casualties a little akward as term? Anatolmethanol 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, "casualty" is a poor choice of word there. I can certainly see how the figures are complicated by the timeline. I suppose the thing to do is condition every figure with the chronological period it describes.DBaba 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good proposition (chronological). Anatolmethanol 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a bibliography, should this not be replaced by a Reference section citing the books and works consulted to write the article? Anatolmethanol 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Propagating the alleged Genocide

I am neither Turkish nor Armenian. I used the word "allege" because unlike the Holocaust, the UN (to the best of my knowledge) hasn't classify this as genocide. Again, this is to the best of my knowledge! I am studying in Germany at the moment & have some Armenians & Turkish friends I hang out with (they don't mix). What I observe is that my Armenian friends always use every possibility to stress the genocide. How they do it even when I make observation about Armenian names ending in -yan or -ian really amaze me.... I am curious wether this is typical Armenian? I am NOT complaining, merely curious. Thanx!Rad vsovereign 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Bearing Witness to the Holocaust, 1939-1989 By Alan Lewis Berger "The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were clear instances of what the UN has called "genocide-in-whole". The word was invented to describe the mass killings of the Armenians and Assyrians and other people. Therefore there is no need for alleged. --Vonones 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one can have his or her own interpretation of international laws (ask Bush...) NOT that I compare Mr. Berger to Bush mind you. What I'd like to know is wether UN or any of her bodies have recognize the alleged genocide. Thanks! Rad vsovereign 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it doesn't really matter since politics come in the way. Just as the US will not recognize it because of its close relations with Turkey. It can sabotage alot of things. --Vonones 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkish POV?

This article makes really convincing argument for the Armenian case. But I'd like to reserve my judgement (which only matter to me ^^) until I read the Turkish arguments. Does anyone have the knowledge to present Turkish POV as extensively as the Armenians? It would be interesting to see the two arguments side-by-side if only for the sake of neutrality. Thanks! Rad vsovereign 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Denial of the Armenian Genocide --VartanM 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the same difficulty discerning the truth in the Holocaust article - or do you need a reference to a neo-Nazi site? --THOTH 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, are you the THOTH from Edward's forum, several years ago? :) Flavius Belisarius 02:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most Turks I know don't deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed. They do dispute some of the circumstances, but their primary complaint seems to be the term genocide, as opposed to mass-murder, death-marches, etc. I went looking for definitions, and found ones that support both views, so I can see their point. In reading the UN definition of genocide, I think this falls under it, but the UN definition is so broad that it covers things that most people would not accept as genocide. Or maybe I just know a select group of Turks, but it's something to think about. I recently read that the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing is the focus on extermination vs expulsion. If that's the case, this might to be more of the latter. Perhaps there should be a third page "Dispute on the naming of the Armenian Genocide"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhitlark (talk • contribs)

A nice article: Reductio ad Hitlerum Deniz^T_C 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can find Turkish POV in the offical site of Turkish General Staff in the following URL http://tsk.mil.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri.htm The whole archive is collected in six volumes in Turkish along with English translation. Yin Yang 06:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see sourced, cited writing on the so-called "Turkish" point of view, check out "Tall Armenian Tale". Google it. No, just having a title that's belittling to Armenians doesn't make it all BS, believe it or not. I've never found a single citation to be false.

Tall Armenian Tale features many, many perspectives. The site is actually enormous. Tons and tons of material. It's worth a read. And he doesn't "deny" anything, by the way. He cites the same range of figures of deaths that are cited here, and recognizes it as a tragedy. He just points out, over and over again, page after cited and referenced page (letting others make his points for him), that the Armenians have roughly half as much blood on their hands as the Turks do from that period, which is to say they have so much blood on their hands it's impossible to call one side a victim and the other a villain.

Flavius Belisarius

Youre revert warring already got one article locked. Please discuss changes in here and reach consensus before making anymore changes to the article. --VartanM 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, do you deny the fact that Talat Pasha, who masterminded the deportations, estimates 300,000 deaths?

It is a "fact", not my opinion. And Wikipedia's duty is to "list the facts", not to take any sides.

If you ask me, the real figure is probably above 300,000 and below 1,500,000 - but these are the two extremes of the "estimates" (as all figures are merely estimates, since no official death count was made).

I also think what happened was nothing less than "ethnic cleansing".

If you are looking for a "Turkish enemy", I am not the one. I am only seeking the truth.

Also, the Turkish-Armenian conflict clearly ended in 1921 with the Treaty of Kars, therefore the Armenian efforts of extending the calendar of events up until "1923" so that a link with the present-day Turkish Republic (founded in 1923) can be established is totally baseless. Flavius Belisarius 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is seeking the truth can you please state the source for the 300,000? and the numbers may be higher than 1.5 million since no one here is psychic or a magician who knows what accurately happened. "The genocidal campaign continued through 1917 and picked up again in 1918 when turkish troops entered Caucasus. In the end. Anatolia's three thousand year old 1.5-2 million strong Armenian community was gone." -Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany - Page 263

by Isabel Virginia Hull, Isabel Virginia Hull is one of the most accomplished German historians. Some more, "Estimates of the Armenian dead vary from 600000 to 2 million." Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide - Page 15 by Richard G. Hovannisian, Richard Hovannisian is a historian who is reliable in Genocidal context. There is many more to state but this is enough that is why we need to say over 1.5 Million and hundreds of thousands since it is more accurate. --Vonones 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Were you aware that at least a quarter of the Turks were also dead. I wonder who killed them...

Those figures are the "total number of people deported from Anatolia", not the "total number of people who died". Flavius Belisarius 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the passage, "refers to the forcible deportation and massacring[1] of hundreds of thousands to over 1.5 million Armenians dur..." --Vonones 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then almost everyone deported was killed, which is a greater death rate than the Nazi gas camps, which I doubt. Toynbee believes that probably 1/3 of those deported lost their lives, 1/3 managed to hide, and 1/3 others survived in exile in other countries. Flavius Belisarius 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It says deportation and massacring of millions to thousands... It doesn't necessarily say they all died. Arnold J. Toynbee estimate is only two years. --Vonones 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

However, his estimation of 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 was probably a constant and didn't change much Flavius Belisarius 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we shouldn't assume, what do you think about the header? it says deportation and massacre, and that is why I reverted. --Vonones 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your real goal here, flavius, is to minimize the truth of the Genocide and make the turkish side look less barbaric in its past and current actions. You're not the first person to pose as a "peaceful turk", who only wants to spread the "truth". Real historians know what happened and real students of history know what happened.--Moosh88 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, isn't that what everyone wants? To spread the "truth"? And don't put peaceful Turk in quote. Look up the history of the Armenian terror organizations, and you'll find yourself putting "peaceful Armenian" in quotes.

Note

Note: I've fully protected the page. Although there appears to be a disposition for discussion, there is a dangerous potential for 3RR here. Protection is of course not an endorsement of the current version. I hope you will reach consensus soon, and when you do you may request at WP:RFPP that the protection be changed to semi. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken URL at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#_note-BBC_News

The "E" needs to be lowercase, I think: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/6045182.stm does not exist, but http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm does exist.

I wanted to make this correction myself but I am not allowed to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 14:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

my revert

questionable image (the soldiers were Russian according to talk page, the tag might be wrong Wegner died in 1978), POVing of a section, along with removing a sourced statement. The recent addition might violate WP:Recentism, if it doesn't, then we can add it, but not there, which is again POV pushing, Reductio ad Hitlerum kind of. So the question is why did nobody else revert? Deniz^T_C 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a main article on the casualties with various different sources, the sections title explicitly says between 1915 to 1918, so how sourced it might be it does not go there, the section speak of 1915-1918 while Toynbee paper was written in 1915 and published beginning of 1916. As for Britannica, over the years it changed its figures and versions, but in its other entry it does include the range 600,000 to 1,5 million, just like Encarta, even the Assembly of Turkish American association figures is included there. Besides, the claim that 1,5 million is from the modern republic of Armenia isen't even true, that figure originate from the Germans, Armenia few years ago provided if my memory doesn't fail, 1,3 million. Fo those reasons, and many others, the intro of the other article as a replacement to that section is the best thing to do. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Any answer? Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is referenced to the US archives. --Vonones 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All I see is an Armenian contingent in the Tsarist army being underessed probably by a division of the third army to dress with it. The picture does not go there as it is not really Genocide picture. Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what happened to the pictures which Raffi obtained permissions from the holders of copyright to be used on Wikipedia? Drosophilawhodoestnotfly 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WHAT GENOCIDE ?

Do you mean the "Turkish Genocide" (Irving L. Horowitz) as the genocide against the Ottoman Armenians in 1915/16 or can´t you write correct English ? SoE 80.136.107.218 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference number 26

Reference number 26 states that Armenians were expelled to the desert region of Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is one of the most fertile places on earth. A source with such a paradoxical statement, whether posted intentionally or unintentionally, undermines the credibility of the source, as it is clearly biased in favor of Armenians. Scapegoat123456 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 26, pbs.org, may well be quoting something in error, but it's quite a leap to posit bias "in favor of Armenians". I hope you haven't chimed in just to imply that these events are a question of Armenian views versus Turkish views, rather than history versus the Republic of Turkey and its lobby.

I see PBS stating "Over the next two years the Armenian population of Ottoman Turkey was uprooted and expelled to the desert regions of Mesopotamia." That's the only reference I see to Mesopotamia, but I could be misunderstanding you. I recommend Google Earth; just plug in 35.2° N 40.3° E to get a good look at the route to Deir ez-Zor, which looks like death itself even via satellite (if I'm not mistaken; if I am mistaken, that doesn't mean I'm insincere!) I've seen Deir ez-Zor noted several times as a "destination", though it's hard to imagine anyone surviving that far, so why even bother going all the way out there. Cheers, DBaba 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many who disagree with the Armenian point of view, not just the Turkish government. I'm sure you know that well. You know that many eminent historians dissent from the view that what happened should be called a genocide because of the deaths that were being inflicted on *both* sides.

I'm beginning to think you guys do that on purpose, as if you think if you say it enough times it'll become true. You may be right, also, but bullying history and convincing sheeple by pretending to have consensus is a piss-poor way of remembering your fallen ancestors.

Patrick Devedjian as a lawyer of terrorist organization ASALA

Isn't it worthy to know that Patrick Devedjian, who proposed the law of forbidding to talk against armenian genocide in France, was also an advocate of ASALA(The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) that was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akanyilmaz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"" -But how did a high-profile politician and civil servant(Patrick Devedjian) get involved in controversial cases like defending professed members of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia at a time when ASALA was branded as “a terrorist organization.”

Devedjian’s answer reflects no hesitation.

“The people I defended in court were not terrorists. They were resistance fighters ... Armenian resistance fighters,” Devedjian said.

One of those he successfully defended was the late Monte Melkonian, who was detained in Paris in 1982 on charges of traveling with a false passport and involvement in an attack against the Turkish Embassy in Rome.

"" http://www.agbu.org/publications/article.asp?A_ID=90

And isn't it strange that when the resistance fighters are turks to save their land and borders against russian, italian, british and french forces during the world war, what they do is called "genocide" ??

Please use this talk page only to suggest ways to improve the article. This talk page is not a forum for general discussions about the subject of the article. Thank you. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I simply suggest to somehow add this fact which indicates that the politician who proposed the regarding law in French Parliement(patrick devedjian), was deeply bounded into the idea of absolving the terrostist attacks of Asala(that can be followed from the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_by_the_Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia).

This may help to discuss whether the scientific term for the Armenian Issue can be called a genocide or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akanyilmaz (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how something like this doesn't get any response... Maybe the Armenians have done a naughty thing or two, huh? Wouldn't guess from the article that they had active terrorist organizations during the time of the "genocide"...

External links

I think this section should be greatly revised. We should remove most of them. We should definitely not have two links from the same website. Armeniapedia etc. are not reliable, cannot have them here. Photos ... and omedia one can stay. Don't know about armenocide, it mentions manipulations. Deniz^T_C 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks Deniz^T_C 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Denizz, you are not the be all end all decider of what is "not reliable". My site is extremely reliable and referenced. What genocide info is unreliable in your not so humble opinion? Simply throwing out the word and having the link removed is not how this article is changed. It required DISCUSSION here. This is a sensitive topic, and you know it. My site is also a wiki, so if you don't like something, feel free to voice your thoughts and edit. Just because it is a wiki does not mean it is a free for all however. I am very well educated on the topic, and review all the changes. --RaffiKojian 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikis are almost never reliable sources, so I expect that Denizz is quite right here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your very valuable input Angus, but I expect you people to actually VISIT Armeniapedia's genocide pages before you judge the site. Sorry if you feel that's asking too much of you, but if you do, then your input is not needed. --RaffiKojian 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Still a wiki Raffi, not a reliable source, whatever Armeniapedia's standards may be. The only place it is cited already appears to have a reference to the ICTJ, so is there any reason for citing Armeniapedia at all? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards are particularly important here. Armeniapedia's a wonderful project, a wonderful resource, but it doesn't belong here. If the rules don't apply to you, whom else shall we exempt? Perhaps one of the dozen or so Turkish nationals who are hanging onto the every word of this talk page? Would you welcome a "Turkopedia"?

I would welcome Turkopedia to the project that welcomed Armeniapedia. Given that we live in a world in which the Turkish state actually mobilizes taxpayer dollars to undermine real-life encyclopedias, surely you'd agree that this system is preferable? DBaba 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the link Angus, and I did not see anything forbidding a wiki. In addition, as I said, every single edit on Armeniapedia is reviewed by me, personally - so I don't know how well most wikis are monitored, but in effect, mine is more a normal site that others can submit information to for review, using a wiki script for convenience. And if you have opened the literally hundreds of genocide related pages and only seen once source Angus, then I don't know what to tell you. There are about 100 articles from the New York Times alone from the WWI era, for example. Follow all the links, check them out. The Armeniapedia link has been there for years, after much debate, for good reason. And DBaba, I don't care what format a website is in, if there is a solid Turkopedia, I'll be happy to link to it from both Wikipedia, and Armeniapedia. Solid. So let the "dozen or so Turkish nationals" start working on their project right away. Your paranoia is not impressing me, and neither is Angus' supposed rules. We all have brains, and can look at websites and sources and judge their quality. We have judged Turkish websites before, for their content/value, and Armenian, and as I said, erasing the Armeniapedia link, which certainly has one of the largest bodies of digital information on the genocide for the reasons you are trying to cite is not right. --RaffiKojian 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're completely out of line reverting that edit. That's just ridiculous. Like everyone who disagrees with you might concede you have a point by virtue of your being boorish? It's your website, it doesn't matter how well you execute it, it's still a personal publication (and a Wiki) DBaba 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a wiki, then we use links to Wikipedia for example at "See also" etc. If even Armeniapedia is unreliable it is free encyclopedia and can be edited by anyone! So it cant be classified as radical or false (then change it or prove that administration doesnt allow you to do it)! About Turkopedia: would you suggest to use any -pedia denying the Holocaust in that article just for... "neutrality"?

No. Nobody's "denying" anything. The Holocaust deniers have nothing to add to a Holocaust page. No historian from a respected institution denies the Holocaust. And, no one "denies" what you call a genocide, they just dispute the accuracy of calling it a genocide without at the same time mentioning the horrible and very similar actions undertaken by the Armenians who initiated the violence between Turks and Armenians. We deny little to nothing. The Armenians were killed, a million or so, by Turks and it was wrong and nothing justifies it. Terribly wrong, one of the great catastrophes of history. Agreed. That's established. It's just that the Turks suffered at Armenian hands at the same time, and the people who use the word "genocide" demonize Turks and seem to be readying the Armenians for sainthood. No, it's not about denial. The only thing being denied when people like me and people like you come together to tell the story of the catastrophe that befell both Turks and Armenians at the time is the fact that Armenians did terrible things to Turks, also. The insult to us isn't the word genocide. Vocabulary is malleable -- if you want to make this a genocide, fine, it's a genocide. That doesn't make it any worse or any better. But what stings is that no one mentions all the Turks that died at the hands of the people whose suffering is being recognized.

It just seems absurd to us that both aren't being recognized. Massive numbers of people died, unjustly, at the hands of Armenians and Turks. Yet, the people who are being remembered, and whose treatment is being condemned, are all of one race. The other race's hardship is fogotten. But that's political recognition, and I digress. I'm here because I want recognition of the Turkish deaths at the hands of Armenians on this page.

I don't deny anything. Few of us doubt much of the history put forward here. We wonder why you are denying, or ignoring, what the Armenians did to the Turks at the same time. It deserves to be on this page. If the Jews had formed terrorist organizations, gone on record as having a goal of inciting violence to attract Westerners to their plight (just as now with the recognition campaign), including through the use of BS propaganda, and more importantly, again, through violence. Then, when the Empire truly crumbled, Armenians massacred huge numbers of Turks. How is that not material when we discuss the Armenians that died at Turkish hands?

The "genocide" isn't denied: we just wonder how you can call what happened to the Armenians a genocide without speaking equally seriously and concernedly in condemning the deaths of the Turks of that era at the hands of Armenians, rather than spending your time condemning a nation that had nothing to do with this genocide, and a group of people who weren't even alive when it happened.

Also is it not strange to have 3-5 external links for such an important article? Andranikpasha 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

External links are meant as sources, and this article is not short on sources, though having more reliable sources is better. We can't have external links for the sake of having external links. Also, external links were discussed unlike suggested, and Raffi's insistence makes things only worse imo. This may be a controversial topic, but I don't see a point in RaffiKojjian's last edit summary. A rationale should apply to all edits, selectively choosing is not a good practice. See WP:CONSENSUS to see how things go. Normally we should be even wary of using works of academics whose main expertise is not the subject, as a source. Also Andranik, please don't ignore my message on your images. Deniz^T_C 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So you admit, that consensus is important, yet I repeat, after YEARS of the link being considered valuable and the content important, it was removed *without discussion*. What kind of consensus is that? And what is the point of saying it is personal publication, DBaba? Because of the introduction page has my summary of events? That's it? I have hundreds of pages on the topic on the site, and I needed an intro page to bring it together, that's all. I don't think any of you have taken the time to look into all the information under http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide#Other_Information - which if you prefer to skip my intro, you can link directly to that. But you haven't even looked at it it seems to me, and have judged the entire site without looking at it. Am I being boorish? Are you? This is not the first time my site is being attacked by Turks (I only mention that they're Turks because that's who has always perhaps not coincidentally attacked it) on wikipedia - calling into question the value or credibility, when you can easily see the huge volume of sourced information on the site. If you find anything questionable/unsourced which you do not think belongs there, I'd be happy to hear about it, here or there. I've made it clear on Armeniapedia I insist that information be right, so that anyone, including Turks can visit the site without questioning the integrity of the site. I believe the truth needs to be known - whether it is the Armenian Genocide, ASALA, Khojalu, or anything else. It is all a part of Armenian history and I don't want anybody to be deceived about any of it - not on my site. So if I found your quiet raid on my link offensive, without discussion or consensus (in fact, going against years of consensus), you should understand my anger and any resulting "boorishness". --RaffiKojian 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. (Or "hear, hear"?) Exactly. "It is all a part of Armenian history and I don't want anybody to be deceived about any of it." That's so very much how I feel about this matter. Let's just tell the whole story. I think the Turkish deaths also need to be talked about here on this page, as well as the abominable terror organizations, Dashnaks, Hunchbacks, etc., that preceded the violence, the predecessors of the disgusting ASALA.

And, in response to Armeniapedia links being removed: if you'd accept the sourced and cited "Tall Armenian Tale", "Armeniapedia" would be acceptable.

But I doubt you'd accept Tall Armenian Tale. You'll just have to cite the materials you've(?) already culled in your work on Armeniapedia. It shouldn't be a big difference anyhow, right? Just put in the references on the Armeniapedia page as references on the Wiki, rather than putting the Arm'pedia page as a reference.

Deletion of the source by Turkish General Staff

If even this source is radical, its a denial of the Armenian Genocide as dedicated to another "version" of events by Turkish state organization, so its represent state views on the topic.Andranikpasha 12:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion On Medz Yeghern

To Gazificator: In the previous section of our discussion you and Meowy have made much of the idea that there has been such a change in the meaning of "yeghern" over the last hundred years that the present-day meaning is different from that used by Armenians in 1915 and after.

Examples of this position:

1. Meowy 16:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nor is it correct use modern meanings to translate a phrase that was coined almost a century ago.

2. Gazifikator (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I check the greatest authority Hrachia Acharian's dictionary he translates Yeghern both as "calamity, evil (and in new literary Armenian as crime)" [1].

3. Gazifikator (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Medz Yeghern" was first used in the circle of Constantinople Armenians (by Teodik, as I know), not by Ashot Sukiassian in 1960's. Sorry, but your research is completely useless and is really a wasting of time...

Question on your citation of Hrachia Acharian in #2 above:

Do you dispute that when he gives "crime" as the meaning of "yeghern" he is telling us that is its meaning in modern Armenian, i. e., the Armenian of his own day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Diranakir (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review & evaluation of definitions cited for Եղեռն [yeghern] from April 24, 2012 to the present in sections 2 & 4 of this Talk page discussion:

1. Rotbandito initiates the topic on April 24th with a Google machine translation giving "the Great Enormity, the Great Atrocity" for "Medz Yeghern". On this basis he/she claims that crime is the wrong translation. This does not follow, which I point out at the time. Rotbandito has remained silent on the issue ever since.

2. Marshall Bagramyan, who reverted "Great Crime" last April 24th, tells us his dictionary (not named) gives "slaughter, carnage, genocide, crime, evil deed" as definitions and concedes that "crime" is the best definition. He has remained silent on the issue ever since.

3. Gazifikator cites Hrachia Acharian's dictionary entry for Եղեռն [yeghern] as support for his "calamity" translation, whereas what Acharian actually says is that "yeghern" means "crime/ոճիր" [ vojir] in modern Armenian. At the same time, if one looks up ոճիր in the same dictionary one sees that Acharian in turn defines it with Եղեռն [yeghern]. See: http://www.nayiri.com/imagedDictionaryBrowser.jsp?dictionaryId=7&pageNumber=1952

4. I refer my opponents to Ashot Sukiasyan's thesaurus of the Armenian language and subsequently provide the link to the page where Sukiasyan lists 16 synonyms for Եղեռն [yeghern], each of which is a word for extreme violence.

5. I next cite a monograph by Professor Seda Gasparyan [Doctor of Philological Sciences at the State University of Yerevan] entitled The Word 'Yeghern' and The Semantic Field of Its Equivalence in English. In her analysis Professor Gasparyan repeatedly and consistently returns to the point that the concept of crime is the core meaning of yeghern. In the course of doing so, she cites Sukiasyan's entry, the same one I mentiioned above but which was dismissed at the time as completely irrelevant by Gazifikator. Furthermore and very significantly for the purposes of this discussion, Professor Gasparyan explicitly and categorically rejects the concept of "calamity" as in any way expressing the true meaning of "yeghern".

I think it's time to bring this discussion to a close. It's lasted several weeks now and I have given it my all. I don't think the same can be said for my opponents who have so far not cited a single reputable, scholarly source to back up their notion that "calamity" is an accurate translation of 'yeghern'. All I have from them are a couple of whopping red herrings. I have proved in this discussion that yeghern=crime and that Medz Yeghern=Great Crime. If there is anyone out there (other than Meowy and Gazifikator) who disagrees with me and still thinks "Great Calamity" is the right translation I would like to hear from you, but only if you can document your position with respectable, verifiable sources. When I finally replace "Great Calamity" with "Great Crime" in the lead paragraph of the article I don't want anyone to suddenly jump up and find their tongue and accuse me of acting without proper discussion when there have been weeks to discuss it without my hearing a thing from them. Your silence now will not recommend your comments later. Now is the time to declare yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)