Talk:Armenian genocide reparations

This article has been nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations --Hittit (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The name "Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations"

I don't know how to change the name of the article or link other names to it, but I thought of "Armenian Genocide reparation issue". On the Genocide part I made it very short to refer to this article "Armenian Genocide reparations", but for a wider article it isn't enough I think. What can you propose? Aregakn (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I named it this way instead of merely "Armenian Genocide reparations" is that reparations have not yet been granted by Turkey, only a few insurance companies did it. If there are other ways to name this article, there's no problem. --Davo88 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Right! And this is why I mentioned, I wouldn't have the title that way on a separate article and proposed an other title: "Armenian Genocide reparation issue" or could be "The issue of the Armenian Genocide reparation". The reparation issue as a generalised understanding can refer to all the issues: legal, moral, state, insurance etc. alike. The problem is, as far as I feel it, expression "Demands for" is not good for a title and for representing the whole complexity of the subject. Do you see what I mean? Aregakn (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah maybe we can call it "Armenian Genocide reparations issue". Though I noticed that there exists an article called Reparations for slavery and it's also about reparations that have not yet been granted. --Davo88 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it could be without "issue": "Reparations for the Armenian Genocide". Even if other articles are good to be noted, but it would not be correct in our context (genocide, loss of real estate and other property, the land etc), even if it speaks of unmade reparations. Slavery is a lot different than that. And also here are much more issues to be addressed and solved than in the slavery case. Nobody denies it, nobody opposes it etc. There is an other idea that came to my mind. Maybe not "Armenian Genocide reparations' issue" but "The Armenian Genocide reparation issues" marking that there are several issues to be adressed. This is also what is described in the Article (insurances, moral, cultural, property, other finances, the loss of motherland etc.). What say you? Aregakn (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that calling it "Armenian Genocide reparations issues" would be grammatically correct. In this context, "issue" is like "question", as in the question of Armenian Genocide reparations. You don't need to write it in plural form because those words already show that there are several things (ex: demands) that have to be addressed. Writing it in singular form is good enough. Right? --Davo88 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word "issue" can mean but is not limited to the understanding of "question". When we are naming it "issues" we therefor have to concentrate on what issues are connected to the reparation question. Thus if we name the article "issues" there have to be problems, questions ISSUES connected to the reparation. If we name it "issue" the information concentration has to be the one issue of Turkey's (and maybe other involved sides') reparation and not that much on the issues connected "how, what, why".

1) issues = issues connected to the reparation

2) issue = the issue of reparation by Turkey

But surely the word "demands" cannot stay as it doesn't reflect the real subject of the article, it is difficult for search and doesn't sound encyclopedic (I think). Aregakn (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposing new titles/names and redirects

• I would like to propose the name "Armenian Genocide reparations' issue" and redirects from "Armenian Genocide reparations", "Armenian Genocide reparation", "reparations for the Armenian Genocide", "reparation for the Armenian Genocide", "Reparations for Armenian Genocide" and "Reparation for Armenian Genocide". Can you please express your opinions? Aregakn (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this new title. As for the renaming: click on the arrow after the star on top of the article page and see "move". Sardur (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a native speaker, so my opinion may have limited use, but as far as I see from search results for the similar Holocaust topic, the "Holocaust Reparations" is very common. By analogy, I would suggest "Armenian Genocide Reparations". For Turkish readers, there can also be a redirect from "Reparations for Alleged Armenian Genocide", and thus everybody must be happy with the very neutrral point of view. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is a bit different from the Holocaust reparations. As the Genocide has not yet been accepted by Turkey and no reparations by it or other involved party offered/made, the name as simple as that would not represent the meaning of the article. The term "issue" together with "reparationS" was used to project, that there are issues the article describes. What would your comment be about that? Aregakn (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Either Armenian Genocide reparations' issue, or Armenian Genocide reparations is just fine with me. -- Davo88 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus? Can we state, that we have a consensus on "Armenian Genocide reparations" as title? Aregakn (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• agree to "Armenian Genocide Reparations" with all redirects mentioned by Aregakn. Rokarudi's point about a redirect from "alledged", though understandable, but is anacceptable a this is only a turkish bias. It can be mximum in the turkish Wiki, though still anacceptable. Bringing the example of Holocaust I wonder if he checked if there is any such link to Holocaust to keep, as he chose to name it, a neutral point of view for whoever doesn't accept the fact of Holocaust. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done the page was moved to "Armenian Genocide reparations" with redirects from most possible searches. Please create redirects from pages that you think will be searched and are appropriate. Aregakn (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Conference in Ankara

Davo88, there is something lacking in it. I mean there is little context to be a sub-paragraph. Maybe there can be conclusions or anoncements the participants made, or maybe comments of others about the conference? Pls consider as I have little info about it. Aregakn (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just had an idea to make the subject more generalised and to have sub-divisions like "Conference in Ankara". I made the paragraph not to be included in the "recent developments" but be a separate section about local and international conferences. What do you, guys, think? Aregakn (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there have not been enough conferences where reparations are discussion, so that it constitutes a section of its own, that 's why I left it under Recent developments. --Davo88 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet not many, but arecoming. There are some "Lectures" of Professors that can be included in this section. It's a "monologue-conferance" I'd call it :). The title can be changed accordingly. Aregakn (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Davo, the problem is, that recent developments are to be always edited. for instance, how do they become non-recent? And if so, where are you going to put them? DO you see what I mean? Aregakn (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They could simply stay in that section. Just look at the Recent developments section of the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page. I'm even wondering if the subtitles should be removed in order to make it look like the Recognition page. --Davo88 (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope! Reparations question is a separate issue from the recent developments. Maybe in this article there should be more specifically mentioned the recent developments for reparations and not for others. Let us say, the legal reparations by the state are not the recent Insurance activities.

And I do think that we have to separate the conferences from the insurance-related activities. The insurance issue is not much relevent to the legal reparations by the state. Aregakn (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is not necessary to have more information to make the "conferences" separate. They can be added in the future. It is like not making links to wikipedia articles that don't exist yet. Vice-versa, it might help somebody having the relevant information to add to it. Aregakn (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you create a conferences section? I put it under recent developments because it was the first time that the issue was discussed in Turkey, I see it as some kind of a major breakthrough, not just like some random conference among Armenians in North America or Europe which aren't necessarily worth being discussed in the article...--Davo88 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not really understand what you are trying to say with "just like some random conference among Armenians.." and especially that aren't worth to be mentioning. What I know is, that the important international or local discussions, consultations, conferences, seminars even lectures worth being mentioned should be in the article. I do believe, that for the process of reparations these kind of activities are important and do really constitute something more for it, rather than "a recent development". In them can also be pictured the discussions about the Armenian-Turkish protocols and issues risng from it, how some of them, that are connected to the reparations, legal and/or political issues of history and many other cases. I do not see why the Conference in Ankara seems less important for you under a major title "Conferences and (whatever)" than it does when being one of the, so called, "Recent developments". Aregakn (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the Ankara conference is important, and what I was trying to say is that it is more important than another conference that may someday take place elsewhere in the World. That's why I don't think we can group any such conferences with the Ankara conference, which I think is a unique one. --Davo88 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... but can you tell me why do you predict the future and why would you mark this conference more important than any possible? Is it that Turkey said the reparations should be granted on that conference or something? Aregakn (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in reality, creating countless sections and subsections would only just entangle the article. The important is the text anyway. --Davo88 (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge result

 Not done This article has been discussed for to be merged to the article Armenian Genocide and the result was not to merge. The details can be found on the talk:Armenian Genocide. Aregakn (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposing this article for deletion

In my view this article is Original Research (among others) and qualifies for deletion, before proposing neutral 3rd party view is desirable, preferable by admin. regards --Hittit (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

In my opinion the move from "Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations" to "Armenian Genocide reparations" makes it much more difficult to write an NPOV article. The new name for the article has more of a bias than the old name. This is reflected through the article which reads as is compensation should be paid because there is some sort of universal agreement that this should be done.

Because the name "Armenian Genocide" is embedded in a descriptive title it implies that this article is a discussion about reparation for a genocide. Yet there is no evidence given in the article that any reparation paid to date are for an act of genocide and not for crimes against humanity and other crimes, or simply paid because the person died and received money through entitlement under the usual terms of a life insurance policy. Take for example the very first paragraph:

Armenian Genocide reparations refer to the restitutions for the damage caused on the Armenian nation due to the Genocide of 1915 committed by Ottoman Empire. Those could be of financial, estate or territorial nature alike, and may be claimed individually or collectively as well as by the State. The issue has yet to be addressed by the perpetrators.

The first sentence states that this article only deals with restitutions for genocide. Why only genocide and not financial compensation to the descendants of ethnic cleansing and the massacres? Why does it have to be proven that a genocide has been committed for financial compensation to be paid?

Why only killings committed by [servants] of the Ottoman Empire and not all unlawful killings or deaths caused by unlawful actions? For example the AXA cases seem to me to need to be clarified. Did AXA only pay out because the deaths occurred during a genocide, or did they pay out because the deaths were covered by the standard life insurance policy clauses? If the latter then should they be included in this article if this article is only about those killed in a genocide?

Likewise what are the reparations demanded in the Banks' case? restoration of property is not reparations. If the cases are not about reparations for genocide given the lead should they be included in this article?

The last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead does not seem to me to make sense as the perpetrators are dead and the Ottoman State no longer exists, is it not the descendants of the perpetrators and successor state to the Ottoman Empire who have not addressed the issue?

This sentence sums up the POV that riddles the article: "Although reparations have never been granted by Turkey, the increasing recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the international community and so its eventual recognition by Turkey can lay a solid basis for the start of the reparation process"

Restitution can be agreed and made whether or not the crimes are defined as crimes against humanity, crimes against the person or genocide. Where is it written that "eventual recognition by Turkey [of the genocide] can lay a solid basis for the start of the reparation process" it could just as easily be done without "recognition by Turkey [of the genocide]" -- PBS (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a like some one's thesis work...a subject has bee created from basically nothing, a subject that is pure speculation. And voila now there are "genocide reparations"...what non-sense. The whole thing should be AfD:d --Hittit (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the public announcements of Hittit, as usual for him, on article talk-pages. Public announcements on article talk-pages are usual for Hittit. Aregakn (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) He had done what he said the article worths doing and was clearly proven he was wrong. Now he continues his canvasing again as he did many times.

To PBS:

You are mixing up the whole thing. First of all, the title was dicussed and agreed on by the commnity and you have made no comment on that. If you have a comment about that, then you better have done it in that very discussion and didn't connect it with the content not being NPOV.

Secondly, you are mixing the subject of the article with only some subdivisions of just 1 paragraph of it called "recent developments". It is obvious, that the recent developments are a minor constitute of the article and isn't representing the whole concept. The concept is in other paragraphs.

Thirdly, basing on that the recent developments are not strictly about the reparations for the Genocide and thus claiming the whole article a POV is totally irrelevant. You better find what is POV there to claim it as such.

Fourthly, Genocide is a crime against humanity. I don't understand what the article about reparations for the Armenian Genocide has to do with you putting those terms around.

This article discuss a variety of issues connected to the reparations for Armenian Genocide. and yet I have not seen a single reason for the article to be claimed being only one sided POV. So the tag is put in quite an abusive way and I am going to take it off, until there's a consensus on the issue and understanding, why 1 editor sees it as not in an NPOV. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn unless Hittit has a topic ban you have no right to remove a comment such as Hittit made (See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others' comments) I suggest strongly you revert this edit, because removing others comments without cause is disruptive. I would not expect Hittit to remove your comments, and you should extend to him/her the same curtsey. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now putting aside my administrator's hat, You may think that my putting a POV template on the top of the article is not appropriate, but removing a {{NPOV}} when there is not a consensus to do so is definitely disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to your new section on the merge below, I have just read the comments at Talk:Armenian Genocide#Proposed merge. As you knew the content of that section I think what you have written above in the paragraph that starts "This article discuss ..." is disingenuous as you knew of at least two other editors who have raised non NPOV issues over this article. Give that, and you misunderstanding of the legal distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity, please revert you removal of the NPOV template from the top of the article. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "You are mixing up the whole thing" I think what you mean is "I think you are mixing up the whole thing" or are you making a personal attack? I will assume good faith and assume that you mean the former not the latter.

"First of all, the title was dicussed and agreed on by the commnity and you have made no comment on that." I think "community" is pushing the envelope as I doubt if most of the "community" knew that the discussion was taking place as not RfC or RM was lodged. I have made a comment on it in this section. There is no need to make it in an old section as the initial move has been made. I considered being bold and move it back and lodge an RM but I thought rather than do that I would discuss it first.

"it in that very discussion and didn't connect it with the content not being NPOV" The name of the article --which is a descriptive name -- has NPOV connotations as is shown by the contents of the article.

"Secondly, you are mixing the subject of the article with only some subdivisions of just 1 paragraph" No I spent most of my time talking about the introductory paragraph in the lead. Given that I don't understand you third comment.

I think you are confusing every day usage with legal usage in you fourth comment. If you look at the Rome Statute you will see clearly that there is a distinction in law between crimes against humanity and genocide. (Article 6 is titled Genocide and Article 7 is titled Crimes Against Humanity. I am not suggesting that the Rome Statute is universal law, but it is indicative of the legal difference as it is commonly understood. As a person who is interested in this topic of genocide I am surprised that you did not know this. I hope that now you realise that there is a distinction in law between the two you will now see my comments such as

This sentence sums up the POV that riddles the article: "Although reparations have never been granted by Turkey, the increasing recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the international community and so its eventual recognition by Turkey can lay a solid basis for the start of the reparation process"

with a different understanding. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ammm..... I guess yet I have seen nothing that claims the article to be a POV. Anything you showed that proves I am wrong?

A very nice try to game the system on personal attacks, PSB, but no, "you are mixing things up" cannot be an attack in any way. And yes, what I tell in the way of opinion is always obviously my opinion.

Considering your plain refusal to get to the point here, on the discussion of the move for Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide, I will try to assume good faith in you in this discussion too.

As for Hittit, you better have looked into his engagement and permanent canvassing before telling that a comment only representing a claim with no basis, RSs or rules is a wrong-doing. But I can understand your approach to this type of an editor on this subjects.

The tag will be back, but I hope you will show whatis POV in the article in your next message.

As for crimes against humanity, genocide and whatever you try to compare and discuss, they have nothing to do with the article's claim of being a POV.

By the way, if you wish to see the lead, that Genocide is a Crime against Humanity, I can give you the link and your surprise of me not knowing "this" may turn into a delight that I knew it as it turns to be. Of course the CAH is a broader case and genocide is more narrow (a segment) and Crimes Against Humanity were first claimed as a term to describe the Armenian Genocide, but what it has to do with the NPOV?

No PSB, you were talking about the introduction and comparing it with the some sub-divisions of "recent developments" paragraph. In any way, once again, I don't see what is the POV that you claim.

I am surprised you are telling you have just noticed the merge discussion, because it was mentioned right at the bottom of the tag you put here and it is obvious you notices it before you clicked to edit. One other thing surprising in the same issue, is that you were on the talk-page of the Armenian Genocide while the discussion was active.

Please don't mix several things up in 1 discussion, because it is not easy to remember all the subjects you have been commenting at once. Aregakn (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And I also truly think you have to suggest Hittit to read how to contribute to talk-pages and not me as almost all the talk he did on these pages have nothing in common with the rule you wish me to read WP:TALK. But I will surely bring back his comment for the sake of truth of who has to follow it and who is warned to do instead. Aregakn (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. If you do not think that (s)he has contributed constructively to this talk page then either ignore her/his comments or politely ask for clarification. --PBS (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now back to the content of the article. Let us start with the second sentence first. See my comment above about the perpetrators are they still alive to address the issue. -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If that sentence is posing a problem, then it is easy to simply change "perpetrators" to "Turkey" or "the Turkish government". However, you talk of the distinction between genocide and crime against humanity. Genocide is the gravest form of crime against humanity and is indeed what happened to the Armenians in 1915. That other sentence saying that recognition is a precedent for reparations was modified at a certain point in order to make it clearer. Before, it used to only refer to to Turkey's recognition as a precedent for reparations (as stated in the reference book), but now it refers to both Turkey and other states... --Davo88 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above under international law Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity are distinct. So what is your source for "Genocide is the gravest form of crime against humanity" because according to Dr Larissa van den Herik, an assistant professor in public international law at Leiden University "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," (Caroline Tosh Genocide Acquittal Provokes Legal Debat, TU No 491, Institute for War & Peace Reporting 2 March 2007.)

The problem with the adjustment to the sentence it does not remove the bias for two reasons (1)the Turkish government was not the perpetrator of the crimes it is a successor state to the state that did. (2) There is no coupling between genocide and compensation as the Turkish state or any other institution, or individual, might agree to pay compensation either without admitting guilt for any crime, or by agreeing to pay compensation for other crimes such such as crimes against humanity or for lesser crimes committed through a joint criminal enterprise. This article as it is constituted at the moment is pushing the idea that compensation can only be paid if genocide is proven, which is not supported by law.

There is another point that needs to be raised as well. Just because someone is paid civil damages it does not mean that a crime has been committed. Civil compensation is paid on the probability of culpability which is set at a lower threshold than the evidence for a criminal conviction. See for example of the O._J._Simpson criminal trial for murder (not guilty) and the civil trial for wrongful death (guilty). As it relates to the Armenian genocide, this is explained by Geoffrey Robertson in a legal opinion on the British Governments' position called "Was there an Armenian Genocide?" p. 37 § 87,88. -- PBS (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This website about Rwanda, among others, states that genocide is the gravest form of crime against humanity : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/reports/dsetexhe.html. I do understand your concern, but I doubt that Armenians would settle for compensations for crimes against humanity because it would contradict with the idea that the Armenian genocide has to be recognized for what it is. Besides, there is nobody (Armenian or non-Armenian) that supports compensations because the Armenian genocide is a crime against humanity but because it is genocide.

As for the adjustment to the sentence that I'm proposing, it does not clearly state that the current Republic of Turkey is the perpetrating state even though I say we should replace "perpetrators" by Turkey. It's not as if I'm saying "Turkish perpetrators" or the "perpetrating Turkish government". However, in the sentence we could easily specify that Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire. Davo88 (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I didn't see yet anything about a POV. To answer your questions, please read the article and you shall see how, according to the RSs, the reparations relate to the perpetrators, which are at least the Turkish government. The perpetrators personally were granted forgiveness by Ataturk after conviction. So, anyway, let us not make an OR here but concentrate what is a POV. Please represent that the issue of reparations for the Armenian Genocide is a POV only. I am asking this for the 3rd time. Aregakn (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Davo88 it is a matter of expert legal opinion (and web article that is not written by an expert on international law is not expert opinion). Do you have an expert legal opinion that Genocide is legally a crime against humanity. Obviously the actus reus of Genocide will probably include many crimes against humanity, but to be a genocide it also has to have a specific form of mens rea. It is for this reason that some of the Serbian criminals have been found guilty of crimes again humanity but not genocide: see for example Momcilo Krajisnik. It is the genocidal intent to destroy that distinguishes it from crimes against humanity.

As to your comment about "I doubt that Armenians would settle for compensations for crimes against humanity because it would contradict with the idea that the Armenian genocide has to be recognized for what it is" you are putting forward the POV of this article. The evidence from the Bosnian Genocide is that the victims of crimes against humanity are willing to take compensation even if by law most of the ethnic cleansing was not part of a general genocide (See Bosnian Genocide Case and List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions#United States of America). One would have to have very strong political convictions to refuse compensation merely because of the technical difference in law between a mass murder being a crime against humanity and the lack of evidence to show it was genocide. I think to start to understand the legal differences and nuances around this area of law you need to start to read the ICJ's discussions on the ICTY's findings in the Dusko Tadic case. To invoke the Geneva Conventions, the ICTY had to find that there was an international element to the War in Bosnia. Which it did in the very first trial which was that of Dusko Tadic. The trouble then for the ICJ in the Bosnian Genocide Case to find Serbia not guilty of complicity in genocide it had to explain how the ICTY had not made a mistake in law in declaring that the War involved the Serbian Army, but that the organs of the Serbian state were not complicit in genocide. It is touched on in Bosnian_Genocide#Controversy

The International Court of Justice veered away from the factual and legal findings of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Dusko Tadic case. In the judgment delivered in July 1999, the Appeals Chamber found that the Army of Republika Srpska was "under overall control" of Belgrade and the Yugoslav Army, which meant that they had funded, equipped and assisted in coordination and planning of military operations. Had the International Court of Justice accepted this finding of the Tribunal, Serbia would have been found guilty of complicity in the Srebrenica genocide. Instead it concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case "did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility".

A serach on the net will throw up further explanations such as this this article. The point is that these are very fine legal points which most people would not be interested and they would be strange people indeed if they refused compensation because of such fine legal points.

Which brings me back to the point that the question of compensation and the question of exactly what was the crime committed are different issues yet this article only presents one point of view.

The Turkish government was not the perpetrator of the crimes it is a successor state to the state that did and from legal perspective. So the second sentence presents a bias and is wrong.

To back up the point of view being presented here many of the sources are one sided and advocating one point of view take for example the first source used Theriault: The Global Reparations Movement and Meaningful Resolution of the Armenian Genocide which is cited five times by the article. Here are two quotes from the article that shows this up: "Those whose people begin with little and who do not enslave or exploit others will remain with little." has Theriault never heard of market economies? This is a line striate out of an old Marxism text book. But that in itself is not the problem the problem lies with this:

While the term 'genocide' had not yet been coined when the 1915 Armenian Genocide was committed, the Convention subsumes relevant pre-existing international laws and agreements, such as the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions. Since the genocide was illegal under those conventions, it remains illegal under the 1948 Convention.

This is one point of view but it is probably wrong, as is explained by Telford Taylor one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. in this article When people kill a people

In such an analysis, it should be noted that, as far as wartime actions against enemy nationals are concerned, the Genocide Convention added virtually nothing to what was already covered (and had been since the Hague Convention of 1899) by the internationally accepted laws of land warfare, which require an occupying power to respect family honors and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty of the enemy nationals. But the laws of war do not cover, in time of either war or peace, a government's actions against its own nationals (such as Nazi Germany's persecution of German Jews). And at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the tribunals rebuffed several efforts by the prosecution to bring such domestic atrocities within the scope of international law as crimes against humanity.

Telford Taylor wrote that on 28 March 28 1982 and there are have been developments since then by the international community to bring such atrocities under international law see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674. But AFAICT the atrocities committed against the Armenian was an internal matter so according to Telford Taylor the provisions of the Hague Conventions do not cover those atrocities. It seems to me that those sentences which cover economics or international by the Henry Theriault article should be re-sourced as Theriault is a philosopher and is no expert in either economics or on international law.

The point of the above paragraphs is to try to show that the way the article is constituted at the moment without including view that say that no compensation is due or that compensation may be due for crimes other than genocide, is to present only one point of view of a subject that has many points of view and at the moment it relies on armature legal sources (not sources written by academic lawyers) and those sources by an large have only one specific one-sided POV. --PBS (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Henry Theriault's text presents not only his opinion, but also that of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group where Alfred De Zayas as well as other experts participate too. I would have loved to go into details and nuances, for example the issue of reparations for crimes against humanity versus reparations for genocide, but there is simply not enough material. You may also take a look at this website: http://www.wilsonforarmenia.org/ -- Davo88 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I didn't see you answered me. Any reason? Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly time. But also I saw what you wrote but the only question you asked about the content was "Of course the CAH is a broader case and genocide is more narrow (a segment) and Crimes Against Humanity were first claimed as a term to describe the Armenian Genocide, but what it has to do with the NPOV?" I thought that my answer was contained in my answer to Davo88.

-- PBS (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You had a good summary of what you wrote (and deleted), PBS; without it I wouldn't have seen relevance to my comments.

What you presented is your POV and is not in any way connected to RSs, so there is no NPOV violation to be claimed. To address your issues:

• The fact of the Turkish state being involved in the Genocide is a proven. The legal process and condemnation had taken place and the individual perpetrators and the Government were found guilty both, by Ottoman Court and by the Allied forces. The state was bind to pay "reparation" in the form of territory (according to Sevres Treaty).
• The term "Genocide" as of the UN was not coined even during the Nuremberg process so would you claim it was/is not genocide because the court didn't coin it as such? Or that the reparations for Holocaust are not genocide reparations? Of course not.

At any case, we aren't here to propose our own ideas. The frames of responsibility of the Turkish Republic are well described and referenced in this article. As of (your comments) how the reparations will be paid, in what form, due to another court ruling (because the losses of the Armenians but the gains of Turkey have increased due to exploitation of the "resources confiscated") or the existing Binding Ruling of Wilson or a new bilateral agreement, it's a technical issue of the future. This article summarises what the reparations mean for the this case, why they should be paid, by who and what previous activities took place, what the legal bases are for those etc. In this information I don't see how it is only a POV. Aregakn (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder how much clear I can make it. The article presents only one point of view, it does not discuss the range of possibilities and views. To start at the beginning. The opening sentence makes a statement based on an article by Henry Theriault who is not an expert on international law so is not qualified to make such a judgement. I have for example highlighted a couple of statements he makes for which he is not an expert. On the question of his statement on the Hague Conventions, I have presented the opinion of an international lawyer of high regards (Telford Taylor) who flatly contradicts Theriault's opinion on the Hague Conventions and their relationship to the genocide regarding the behaviour of a government to its own population. -- PBS (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I am starting wondering about the same. I'll try to be laconic this time. WP:NPOV, citation: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Looking forward to seeing you presenting the latter about the Armenian Genocide reparations that were not included in the article. Aregakn (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It would help if the main cited articles used to construct the article were not mainly from sources which are presenting one point of view. Here are some others:

• http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/traces/iss13pg1.htm (2001)
• http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2009/issue1/mihr1.html#_Toc223345527 (2009)
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7050541.ece (2010)

This article was published in Aztag Daily but its republished on an UK academic website and was written an academic from the Judge Business School. Instead of making assertions in areas such as international law where the author is probably not an expert he cites papers ans so it seems to me that it might be a good starting point for an article such as this:

• http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/associates/pdfs/tchilingirian_recognition.pdf (2005)

Similarly this paper another from a well known neutral source http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16599_0310mtgsummary.pdf (2010) has a much more balanced approach.

This was from a quick look around the net but I am sure with little effort many more papers that overview the different points of view can be found. Such overviews of the different views should allow an article with the point of views of the different stake holders to be presented in a far less biased way. -- PBS (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ammm, you know, I wouldn't really call International Law and Philosophy of Law professors, the chief of petitions at the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Secretary of Human Rights Committee as "probably not an expert in areas such as international law" (as you called it).

Moreover, as I see from your last comment, you had not looked into those documents you presented from reliable sources before tagging the article as "NPOV disputed". That is a real tag abuse (something I claimed when deleting it).

Even if I have not read the documents you presented yet, I don't see that you show a contradiction between the content of the article with the sources you found only now.

As for Azeri media, please be serious!

I am now more than ever inclined to delete the tag and add it only when evidence is there. And PBS, sorry, but this isn't the way to act towards articles you wouldn't like to see. Aregakn (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Azeri media? There are no Azeri websites presented here I believe. --Davo88 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS presented some article from Azeri media to present as a different POV from the article. Aregakn (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, that PBS, being active on other topics, is not giving any proofs for his POV claim on this article. I think his above statement of not having read such (except the biased Azeri media) is enough to assume there is none found and the tag was put there with no reason.

I am removing the, in my opinion, abused tag because:

1) there were no proofs presented (besides an OR)

2) there were no published RSs presenting a different POV

3) and that my comments about these issues were not addressed with having PBS active on the project. Aregakn (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What does "there were no proofs presented (besides an OR)" mean? Do you have a source saying that there is no other POV in published reliable sources? What does "and that my comments about these issues were not addressed with having PBS active on the project"?. -- PBS (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not be playing games anymore PBS. I am not to show that there are no other POVs. You are to show that there are, if you claim the article is a POV. Hope that is clear.

You have been asked to do so for many times and not even once you presented on this talk an "other POV". I also hope you are back on the topic again not only because the tag was deleted.

What are the other POVs published in RSs and which RSs? Aregakn (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn do you think that the changes user:CyrilThePig4 has made have improved the article, because although there is more to do the changes have in my opinion improved the presentation of the subject and placed the article on a much better footing for future development? If you do think the edits have improved the article then in hindsight it should be obvious to you you the article was less balanced before. -- PBS (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I am repeating, I hope, though for the 10th, but the last time: which are the POV(s) that are not presented in the article? Refusal to get ot the point by you is totally clear here.

The edits can stay but there are changes that are irrelevant, deletion of referenced and relevant information and the change of the lead that does not refer to the subject of the article directly. Aregakn (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what WP:NPOV in Wikipedia articles means. Aregakn if you have not already read it, I hope you will find Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent illuminating. -- PBS (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only see you fail to present what you're supposed to. I did read it and I did cite the exact words and requirements for an NPOV article. You can have a look in this very talk, if you wish, once again. The idea in short was "The article has to represent all major RS published opinions". I have been asking for at least one major published opinion that has not been represented in this article and you failed to do so. What are your complaints on my knowledge of NPOV rules then? Aregakn (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that the events described here as a genocide were a genocide. There are four positions that can be taken:

1. It was a genocide, reparations should be paid
2. It was a genocide, reparations should not be paid.
3. It was not a genocide, reparations should be paid.
4. It was not a genocide, reparations should not be paid.

The first sentence states "Armenian Genocide reparations derive from the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by Ottoman Turkey." This covers only the first statement and clearly not all the parties agree that this is accurate otherwise compensation would have been paid long ago.

For example neither the British or American governments recognise that the events described here as a genocide was a genocide, nor does the Turkish government. Which means that the first sentence which does not have any qualifiers what so ever is biased. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source Looking backward, moving forward: confronting the Armenian Genocide by Richard G. Hovannisian pp. 149-150 which says "It implies that a tribunal can never be asked directly to recognize the existence of a genocide, as in most cases such recognition is purely incidental to the punishment of the perpetrators or the compensation of the victims, that is, to the legal case that is referred to it." There is more on this the same page but the quote makes the point I am making that "recognition [of the genocide] is purely incidental to ... the compensation of the victims" -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do see ORs by you PBS but there were no published sources. Your first sources have nearly nothing in them concerning reparations.

I can bet you read only that sentence from Richard Hovhannisian's book you show, because the sentence is in the context of the recognition of the genocide by a court, not the reparations. Please do not loose our time this way.

I have added some issues Prf. Hovhannisian discusses about the mechanisms of holding responsible, although his main subject there is the recognition and the relevant legal issues. Aregakn (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also hope, that some editors are not trying to make this talk-page yet another forum to discuss the affirmed fact of the Armenian Genocide and will refer the content of the article about the reparations for it. Aregakn (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. "the affirmed fact of the Armenian Genocide" Where has this fact been legally confirmed?
2. Who says that "The issue of Armenian Genocide reparations derives from the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by the Ottoman Empire." and not [also] from other crimes and civil actions?

Legal conformation (or political agreement by the people of organisations that would pay compensation) of a genocide would be needed needed if reparations are solely based on the fact of genocide. As Hovhannisian says "recognition [of the genocide] is purely incidental to ... the compensation of the victims". You may or may not agree with him, but his is just a valid point of view as that made in the first sentence of the article which makes the first sentence of the article only one of several points of view and therefore not a neutral summary of the issues over compensation. -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the fact is not disputable on this talk. It is accepted by all the major genocide and historical organisations and opposed by several individual scholars criticized in their majority by their own peers for being dependent on Turkish funding or other similar issues. There have also been large scandals in this regard and you may read the Denial of the Armenian Genocide for more details.

This case is not political only so don't take it that way for no reason.

I don't know why you are trying to project the issue only on the legal aspect. Who put this frames of legality only? The "legal" condemnation of the Empire and the individual perpetrators is already made by the Court Martial. With the same success you can claim that there was no "legal" coining of the Holocaust as genocide as the term came to life after it.

The article is represents the published opinions and it projects the current situation with the Armenian Genocide reparations in historical, legal and political aspects alike. If you have other published sources that are reliable, cite them and we can have a look. Until then I am only commenting OR now so I shall stop. Aregakn (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an article about reparations for there to be reparations there has to be either a legal judgement or a political solution. It is not an historical question (historical judgements should be left for other articles such as the Armenian Genocide article). Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the Genocide Convention was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and other definitions have also been postulated.(see Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide). There are many academic definitions of genocide used by genocide scholars (see the article on genocide definitions, and more specifically Tony Barta (1987) and Henry Huttenbach (1988)) which means that when a genocide scholar calls something a genocide it does not necessarily mean it was a legal genocide. Or as the President of the ICJ court that sat on the Bosnian Genocide Case explained that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the ICJ court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term".

For the Bosnian Genocide Case there is a clear statement by the ECHR about the relative weight of legal opinion on whether ethnic cleansing as carried out in Bosnia was a genocide, do you know of any similar document that indicates that the majority of legal scholars consider the events for which compensation is being discussed was a genocide? If not then the first sentence is not valid and should be altered as it does not matter what the majority of scholars in other fields, often using definitions other than a strictly legal one consider it to be. I would suggest that the wording is altered to use the legal opinion legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice (See Armenian Genocide recognition)

In February 2002 an independent legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice, concluded that the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918 "include[d] all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the [Genocide] Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them".

Citing:The Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to the events which occurred during the early twentieth century. The memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel and not by the ICTJ. The memorandum is a legal, not a factual or historical, analysis., http://www.ictj.org/en/index.html, February 2002.

• Page 2: "This memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel based on a request made to the International Center for Transitional Justice ("ICTJ"), on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") entered into by The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission ("TARC") on July 12, 2002 and presentations by members of TARC on September 10, 2002".
• Page 18: D. Conclusion "... Because the other three elements identified above have been definitively established, the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them."

Using that statement we can construct a none biased introduction along the lines of:

The issue of reparations for the Armenian victims of the massacres, deportations [list here anything else that is pertinent] carried out within the Ottoman Empire, that when viewed collectively, in the legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice, can be described by legal scholars as a genocide.

or something similar.

But not also it should be noted in the text of this article what this document says at the bottom of page 8: "The Genocide Convention does not give rise to individual criminal or state responsibility for events which occurred during the early twentieth century or at any time prior to January 12, 1951." Also the section heading on page 9 "ALTHOUGH THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO STATE OR INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO JANUARY 12, 1951, THE TERM "GENOCIDE", AS DEFINED IN THE CONVENTION, MAY BE APPLIED TO DESCRIBE SUCH EVENTS." Both these were cut an pasted by me and as such no special meaning should be given the the BLOCK capitals. -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits by CyrilThePig4

Thank you for the edits Cyril, but there were some things I had to correct.

• For instance losses due to the genocide are issues directly connected to reparations, and they were removed.
• There were some historical background added which was not connected to the reparations issue itself and thus was irrelevant to the article.
• Also, I have never heard of a Turkish perspective on the reparations issue. Your edit in the first paragraph shows it clearly (question that turkey will ever engage in talks), by the way. If you (or anybody) do have any, I'd be interested in reading and discussing those additions.
• One more thing, can you please tell me how the Criminal court deals with reparations issue? As the edit said and I know it deals with individuals.

Thanks for your contributions! Aregakn (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving you the respect that you deserve, Aregakn, I don't think you are able to contribute with a near-native level of English to either the article or the talk pages. I think that is one reason why this article has multiple issues. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit discussions are very efficient on the article talk-pages. Thank you. But if you have anything concrete that you know of my English knowledge, let me know on my talk-page. Aregakn (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn you wrote in the edit summary "I don't think the international criminal court has anything to do with reparations. If considered otherwise, I'd like a discussion on the talk-page"[1]. Why don't you think it is relevant? What about the International Court of Justice? -- PBS (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said the International Criminal Court seemed and seems irrelevant to me in the issue of reparations. The main reason is that the ICC is to judge individual perpetrators and the individual perpetrators (members of the government) are neither the ones to pay the reparations nor are alive. Not less important is, that they have been tried and convicted in crimes. In fact, the "reporter" of the news was quite unprofessional in bringing any comment about it, though he isn't required to be, and did relatively little research. I don't think that anybody would think mentioning the ICC when talking about the Jewish Genocide having Nuremberg Trials in mind, of course if (s)he didn't want the trials of individual perpetrators to repeat. ICJ is not ICC PBS. Aregakn (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I asked about the ICJ. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good that you agree at least on ICC. What about ICJ? Aregakn (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is currently uninformed about the issues involved, it is helpful to know who is actually "Dealing with Reparations". If the matter can be dealt with by the Armenian peoples themselves without recourse to either Turkey or the International community then that should be made clear. If a body that Prima facie should be involved is not involved then it is helpful to know why not. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The ICC is completely irrelevant (as a court) here, according to Article 11 of its Statute:

"The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute."

My two cents. Sardur (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been found to have no relevance to those pursuing a claim for reparations but it is extremely relevant to those resisting pressure to pay reparations. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article on the ICJ and the Armenian Genocide, Cenap Cakmak ICJ and Armenian Genocide dispute 28 February 2008. I am not suggesting this is a reliable source, and I seem to remember reading that this was likely to be rejected/had been rejected (and some of the it was a genocide camp suggested that Turkey had Machiavellian reasons for proposing it because they knew it would not fly). Here is another article Alfred de Zayas, The Armenian Genocide in Light of UN Convention. -- PBS (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also this: Looking backward, moving forward: confronting the Armenian Genocide by Richard G. Hovannisian pp. 149-153 may be of some help in this area From the above discussion, one may conclude that the prospect of having the Armenian Genocide officially recognized or of recieving compensation remains legally weak, especially in the present political context. That does not mean, however that it is simply sheer nonsense. ...." Again like the source I pulled up before in the previous section, Hovannisian indicates that there more than two stake holders/actors involved in the question of reparations in this case the author makes a distinction between the Armenian state and the Armenian people. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Answers are in NPOV. I brought the issue of PBS and Cyril about the ICJ and ICC in a broader subject about the existing legal mechanisms. Aregakn (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words an sources to back them up

This article has number of phrases which fall into the category of WP:weasel words

• "Many Armenians demand a restoration" Who says and what makes http://www.sdpa.org/ a reliable source?
• "According to some there does ..." Who says its some? There is no source for this statement.
• "While current members of Turkish society cannot be blamed morally for the destruction of Armenians" who says they can not be blamed morally?
• This source "Commission on Human Rights, fifty-third session, Doc. E/CN.4/1997/104. Compare with the first report by Professor Theo van Boven C/CH.4/Sub.2/1993/8 of 2 July 1993, section IX, and the second report C/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/7 of 24 May 1996" where is it on the net? If it is not on the net can the relevant section be quoted by the editor, or is it extracted from a third party source (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)?
• "For reparations of gross violations of human rights, two other general principles are relevant:" who says?
• "there are ascertains that the existing legal background provides" who ascertains?

--PBS (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the one that asks these questions read the references? I did and most of the answers were found on De Zayas's page. Emilio1974 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The answers to weasel words does not lie in the sources (although WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does), it lies in editing the Wikipedia article so that it does not use weasel words. -- PBS (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hovannisian

There is a spelling mistake in the article "Hovhannisian" has no "H" in the middle of the name.

The way his book is cited is not correct see WP:CITE#Citation styles publisher, year of publication, and ISBN should be included for any book. If one turns to page page 137 it is clear that this book is not the work of one author so the full citations should be:

• {{cite book|ref harv |first=Joe |last=Verhoeveno |editor-first=Richard |editor-last=Hovannisian |year=3003 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xtWMAOYXyKsC&lpg=PA149&pg=PA137 |chapter=The Armenian Genocide and International Law| title=Looking backward, moving forward: confronting the Armenian Genocide |publisher=Transaction Publishers, 2003 |isbn=0765805197}}: Verhoeven, Joe (3003). "The Armenian Genocide and International Law". In Hovannisian, Richard (ed.). Looking backward, moving forward: confronting the Armenian Genocide. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765805197. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Text "ref harv" ignored (help)

The book is currently cited five times, but the page number is only given as a range "146-153" which makes it difficult to check against the source. Which page supports

• "In this regard the possibility of involvement by International Criminal Court (ICC) seems impossible not only because of that, but also that by it’s regulations it has no retroactive" Which page covers this?
• "This could be the case with Turkey if it is held responsible for the Armenian Genocide

International Criminal Court (ICC)" Which page covers this?

• The paragraph and quote "serious breach of an obligation arising under a pre-emptory norm of general international law" Should be cited as {{harvnb|Verhoeven|pp=145,146}}: Verhoeven 2003, pp. 145, 146.
• etc.

-- PBS (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ECHR and Preussische Treuhand v. Poland

Something has been niggling in the back of my mind about the ECHR and it has come to me. Since the book Looking backward, moving forward was published in 2003 there has been an ECHR ruling (Preussische Treuhand v. Poland) that takes that court out of the running as a possible arbitrator for reparations -- PBS (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: The introduction is biased

The lead currently says: "The issue of Armenian Genocide reparations derives from the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by the Ottoman Empire." This presents only one view that the events of 1915 were a genocide, yet there substantial disagreement if the events constituted a genocide and presenting the view in the unqualified voice of the article is a breach of WP:ASF -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comment Consider the climate change mitigation article, or the Containment. The former article talks about the measures being considered to mitigate climate change, foregoing any discussion of the legitimacy of climate change. Similarly, the latter article talks about containment being a policy to forestall the "domino effect", without discussing the legitimacy of the domino effect.

But more than that, what's written in the lead section here is consistent with what's written in the lead section of the Armenian Genocide article. If you want to debate the fact that there was a genocide, it would seem that the Armenian Genocide article would be a better place to do it. If you can convince those folks that the Armenian Genocide lead section is too one-sided, you might have a better case for coming back here and changing the language in this article. (Though it would still require some argument--I would still refer you to the Climate Change Mitigation and Containment articles...) --RSLxii 17:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether it was a genocide or not. Reparations are not dependent on whether the events of 1915 were a genocide, reparations are dependent on whether crimes were committed, not whether those crimes constituted genocide. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw this at the RfC. The introduction is not biased, and represents the consensus of historians. Figureofnine (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For reparations, this is not an issue of historians it is an issue of law (and politics). There are many different definitions of genocide, but most of them are not applicable to legal cases (see ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins comments in the Bosnian Genocide Case). -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PBS you said that there is disagreement over the events of 1915. During the Middle Ages, if the Roman Catholic Church did not accept the fact that the Earth is round, does it mean that the people who prove that it is round are one-sided? Although there may be various definitions of genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is what is generally accepted. --Davo88 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Davo88 you wrote "PBS you said that there is disagreement over the events of 1915" which sentence that I have written on this page are you referring to? -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that you said there is disagreement over whether the events of 1915 constitute genocide. --Davo88 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is disagreement if the events of 1915 qualify as a genocide under law. There is also the separate question that even if there was a genocide if the Turkish state can be held culpable for some or all of the perpetrators of a genocide (see last paragraph page 14 of the ICTJ opinion linked below). -- PBS (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I don't want to get involved in a discussion, other than to render a prima facie opinion and go. I am only doing this because RfC is super-backlogged, and I am trying to help out.)

With massive documentary evidence, clear definition of term "genocide", and overwhelming consensus of historians, use of term and inclusion is accurate and warranted. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Historians yes but what about legal scholars? There is at least one who agrees with the historians (Geoffrey Robertson opinion). But the advise given to the British Foreign office (which the legal opinion dissents from) is that it is not. Also if one reads the opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice, is far from unequivocal on the matter (The Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to the events which occurred during the early twentieth century.)

-- PBS (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked into this issue a little more--PBS may have a point. Consider that the "holocaust reparations" article is named Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany. Reparations are being demanded not just for the killing of people, but also for the loss of land and property. I personally think that any title that doesn't include the words "Armenian Genocide" in it will be clunky and more confusing, particularly since many of the organizations seeking reparations have the words "Armenian Genocide" in their organizations' names. But PBS, do you have an alternate title to suggest? (Also: I should note that "Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany" is the English name of the agreement between the two countries. If ever an actual agreement gets signed between Turkey and Armenia, the name issue will probably disappear--this article can be named whatever the agreement is named.) --RSLxii 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not so fussed about the title -- as it is a descriptive one the wording at the start does not have to include it. I am more interested in the wording of the first paragraph being neutral. -- PBS (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi PBS, just to be sure we're on the same page, here's what I understand of your view (correct me as necessary):

1. Reparations are being demanded for the crimes that occurred in 1915 in Armenia, be they genocide or otherwise.
2. These reparations are a political matter more than a historical matter, so the political definitions are of greater importance than the historians' understanding of the events. (Actually, you used the word "legal" instead of "political" but I'm inferring you mean the latter.)
3. Many politicians have purposely refrained from saying that a genocide occurred, and so Wikipedia should refrain from making such a definitive statement.
4. The current lede is biased, favoring the viewpoint of those demanding the reparations.

I half agree with your points (if I understand them correctly). The issue of reparations is foremost a political battle. And the entire lede is biased towards those demanding reparations. But even so, I think it's OK the state clearly that reparations are being demanded for the genocide that occurred in 1915. It's a historical fact, one that was considered at great length at the Armenian Genocide article, and a statement that is very relevant to the issue of reparations. The fact that reparations are a political issue shouldn't mean that historical facts get ignored. I think the remainder of the lede could be rewritten to give a better sense of the political issues (on both sides) associated with reparations, rather than just ramming home the fact that the Turkish government is being obstinate. Even if the lede contains a statement like "the government of Turkey has not acknowledged that a genocide, as defined by international law, had occurred", I still think it's okay to write that the genocide *has* occurred. --RSLxii 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an historical fact that crimes against humanity were committed (or at the very least crimes -- although as Turkey accepts there were "mass killing" which makes them crimes against humanity CAH does not seem to be in anyway bias), whether the crimes were a genocide is a political/legal issue if we are talking court cases and international agreements as this article is. It may well be that the majority of historians would agree that the events of 1915 was a genocide, but when they do they are using genocide with whatever it is that they understand genocide to be (see definitions of genocide). Legally it is a highly complicated issue that I doubt most historians are qualified to make an expert comment on. See for example Telford Taylor's criticism of Leo Kuper when Kupper strays into giving opinions the area of international law, or the comments by the Rosalyn Higgins, ICJ President of the Bosnian Genocide Case she noted that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the ICJ Court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term."

The current lead says a genocide took place, but that is not proven. The question of reparations is a legal issue if the political will is there to put the issue to a tribunal or it is a issue to be dealt with with a bilateral treaty. Further whether reparations are paid for losses suffered by Armenians and the wording used to describe what those reparations are paid for, will be part of any agreement. In the horse trading that will take place one side will start off saying "there is nothing to pay compensation for", the other will say "reparations for genocide" and if an agreement is reached there will be give and take on both sides. See for example the deal struck over the UN wording in Genocide denial#Notable genocide denials by governments.

To present the wording of one side of the negotiations as a fact in the first sentence of the articel biased. -- PBS (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I bring up my original point--why not bring this up at the Armenian Genocide article, as that would seem the better place to raise the issue? The lede in that article clearly says a genocide occurred.

Alternatively, if you're worried about confusing a legal definition with a more generic definition, perhaps the phrase "the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire" could be substituted as needed? (Taken from the Armenian genocide article). But then there's a lot of substitution to be done throughout the article if you take this approach....if you can find a practical way to do it, I'm all for it. But I'm also ok with using the word "genocide" to mean an OED definition of genocide, and say "genocide as defined by international law" when that degree of specificity is needed. --RSLxii 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the lead in the Armenian Genocide article it is a fact that the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) have stated that it was a genocide. I do not know whether they are a representative group but I have not seen a reliable source that questions that they are. So I do not have too many issues with it. The current citation claiming it is a genocide is wrong, because unlike the Ruhashyankiko Report (1973) the Whitaker Report was not endorsed by the UN (due to pressure from Turkey), and it would be better if it were replaced with the IAGS or the legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice.

As an aside I think that the introduction the Greek genocide article shows that the points can be made without the overt bias that the introduction to the Armenian Genocide article has. The Armenian Genocide introduction to me reads more like a second-rate advocacy site than a first class encyclopaedic article.

But we are not discussing that article so back to this one:

The IAGS and historians can have any opinions they like about an historical event, but that does not mean that they are qualified to judge whether it was or was not a legal genocide. See for example see the comments by Telford Taylor, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials, on Leo Kuper, a well known genocide scholar, in this article When people kill a people (1982). Or the comments by ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins at the end of the Bosnian Genocide Case that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the ICJ court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term."

The wording "the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire" has problems for several reasons. First it assumes that "deliberate and systematic destruction" is already proven in law (which it is not). The Turkish government's argument is that the mass murder that took place was either not deliberate state policy: That many people died on a death march was not the intention of the authorities it was incidental to their being moved (For a comparison see for example the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe during and after World War II) or it was due to banditry and inter ethnic violence (for comparison see the mass killings during the partition of India in 1947). Now that defence may or may not be hogwash, but to pre-judge the issue is to introduce a bias. Far batter to stick to what is agreed. That there were mass killings and other crimes committed against the Armenian population is not disputed (The Turkish government conceded that point when they agreed to the wording "He cited mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman empire in World War I and other mass killings in history"[2] in a UN exhibition of genocide). So what the reparations are for are the mass murder and other crimes committed against the Arminians living within the Ottoman Empire. -- PBS (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming here from the RfC notice. In response to This presents only one view that the events of 1915 were a genocide, yet there substantial disagreement -- There might be disagreement, but not amongst the academic community, in which there is a broad consensus that this constituted genocide. This has been thoroughly discussed at the Armenian Genocide article, and is in the lead there. The camp of people that "debate" this are in the same boat as climate change, evolution, or Holocaust deniers. They have a right to their opinions, but we don't have to give their opinions undue weight, and pretend like there is some rational basis for debate. Per WP:SUMMARY, we should try to stick to the very well-developed Armenian Genocide article, unless we have good reason not to. Since they can state it as fact there, we can do so here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In this article it is not a question of history this is a question of legality and politics. To the best of my knowledge the best article on whether it was a legal genocide or not is discussed in the the legal opinion commissioned by the International Center for Transitional Justice, which is far from unequivocal on the issue. There is also the legal legal opinion of Geoffrey Robertson, which he is of the opinion that if there had been a trial using today's international law then the Ottoman State would be found culpable under the Genocide Convention. However he points out in paragraph 29 that he does not consider the Genocide Convention to be retroactive. Further in paragraph 50 he is of the opinion that in criticising the British Foreign Office's Eastern Department for stating that "investigating, analysing and interpreting history is a matter for historians" he writes:

Deciding what amounts to genocide is a matter for judgement according to international law, and not and not at all a matter for historians. Historians establish facts: lawyers must judge whether those facts amount to a breach of international law

— Geoffrey Robertson

He makes point because he thinks that the British government's position is a cynical political position taken because the British Foreign Office takes what it sees as in Britain's best economic and political interests today and not a moral position (Sic semper), support by using the opinions of denialist historians.

In this article we are looking at a legal definition of genocide, not a historical definition therefore we should not present genocide as a forgone conclusion in the first sentence, as it is likely that if compensation is paid it will be for crimes that were committed either under international law as it stood at the time and or under the law of the Ottoman Empire, or a combination of both. -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that they perpetrated genocide does not automatically imply that they were convicted of it as a crime. We can say they perpetrated genocide, and then describe what happened legally. I don't see where there could be any confusion, if the article is written properly -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article starts "The issue of Armenian Genocide reparations derives from the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by the Ottoman Empire." that is a biased interpretation, if reparations are paid it will be for crimes committed in and around 1915 and for civil compensation for actions by the the state such as the confiscation of property and damages for mental harm etc. It may be that one of the crimes for which reparations and damages could be paid is genocide, but given the legal and political obstacles that the Turkish government has to that word, it is more likely that reparations and compensation will be paid for the component crimes and civil actions in the events that most historians call the Armenian Genocide. -- PBS (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS I do not know why you think you should decide what the reparations should be paid for, whether for crimes or for benefiting from the crimes or whatever. The article is about the issue existing and on going, not a future prediction, as you are trying to make. The issue derives from the Genocide and its results. If u wish to argue what this issue derives from, then maybe you should argue with the authors sited. If you wish to argue if the events are Genocide in legal terms, then you could do it with Lemkin who invented it claiming it was and in a court when accused of its denial. And trust me, if you do not know you will lose we can try it here, in Germany. Asside from these there is no other statements in the sentence you argue. But once again and most importantly: the ISSUE(S) of reparations DERIVES from the Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.105.184 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 December 2010

From the history of the article

• 12:12, 6 March 2011 -- 195.170.108.10 -- (According to the absence of arguments in the page discussion on why the article is not balanced or neutral)
• 13:13, 6 March 2011 -- Philip Baird Shearer -- (rv last edit there is lots of discussion about this on the talk page and it has yet to be resolved)
• 13:17, 6 March 2011 -- 195.170.108.10 -- (You can put it back when you show an other "point of view" before that there are no reasons to put the sign.)

I refer you to my posting at 01:04 15 August 2010, and please read the wording displayed by the POV template -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation on..

"...While the Government of Turkey has previously acknowledged "a massacre, even a crime against humanity"... "

Can I have a source on this please? This is not so reliable.

--95.0.72.117 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs to be fixed

The lead needs to describe the basics as to what reparations are and what it may entail. Instead, what we read is a bunch of opinions from various scholars or historians regarding the matter. The first sentence in the entire article talks about Henry Theriault's opinion. The lead should not resort to the opinions of a few scholars. It should rather summarize the body of the text. Opinions by scholars should be placed in later sections such as "Reparation proposals" or in Hrant Dink's case "Turkish Armenians". Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not very sure if you read it right but the first sentence says something different. The part "Henry Theriault, writing in the Armenian Weekly, states" can be deleted but it will not change the rest of the sentence about the possible types of reparations. The lead itself not only summarises the broad issue but also provides links to what the summary is based on. If you wish to delete the links for the sake of it, it is possible theoretically. Either way this is not a substantial discussion on the content I suppose. 78.55.130.140 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Armenian Genocide reparations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604083617/http://genevadiplomacy.com:80/prof-alfred-de-zayas/ to http://genevadiplomacy.com/prof-alfred-de-zayas/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523165111/http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/b3111e1e8f4a9278c125660f004e5fcf?Opendocument to http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/b3111e1e8f4a9278c125660f004e5fcf?Opendocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011104034/http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2006122302 to http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2006122302
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arf.am/English/history/002history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202125337/http://www.arfshant.org/index.aspx?PAGEACTION=Home to http://www.arfshant.org/index.aspx?PAGEACTION=Home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624045606/http://www.bartleby.com:80/67/2679.html to http://www.bartleby.com/67/2679.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922002359/http://www.tkb.org:80/Group.jsp?groupID=265 to http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=265

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Armenian Genocide reparations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510063921/http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/05/06/reparations-2/ to http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/05/06/reparations-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720160218/http://eafjd.eu/spip.php?breve2519 to http://eafjd.eu/spip.php?breve2519
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509230141/http://asbarez.com/blog/archives/135816 to http://asbarez.com/blog/archives/135816
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515040542/http://asbarez.com/blog/archives/135992 to http://asbarez.com/blog/archives/135992
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106151318/http://www.arf.am/English/history/002history.htm to http://www.arf.am/English/history/002history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bartleby.com/67/2679.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Section with legal examinations and reports

Added a new section containing legal examinations and reports regarding the AG to the main wiki page, but was asked to move the section here as the main page is said to be long enough already. Having looked through this page, the question is where to put such a section so it fits in best since these reports are legal examinations in general and not limited to the issue of reparations alone. Would a new section after historical background be suiting? Vahagn Avedian 07:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)